The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James P. Kiernan when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 97, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL (Machinsts )
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
SYSTEM (Western Lines)
EMPLOYES, STATEMENT OF FACTS: Machinists James Conty and P. J. M. Sanchez, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, were on the dates in question, employed as such in the carrier's Albuquerque Shops and were available to perform the work in dispute.
Beginning on April 2, 1956, and continuing through April 7, 1956, the carrier engaged the services of Mr. C. Russ and Mr. L. Luther from the Ingersoll-Rand Co. to overhaul thirty-eight (38) Model 3-R-36 Ingersoll-Rand air compressors. The work included installing new engine and compressor rings, tightening some flywheels and replacing others, testing and adjusting the compressors. Carrier assigned these men to a bench in the centralized work equipment shop, furnished tools and other facilities for their use and generally gave them freedom of operation for performing the repair work in question.
The dismantling, repair and adjustment of Ingersoll-Rand air compressors and other similar work is routinely performed at the carrier's centralized work equipment shop in Albuquerque, which is well equipped and competently manned. No work of an unusual or intricate nature was involved.
The mere fact that the work performed on the air compressors was handled in carrier's work equipment shop at Albuquerque, New Mexico, does not give the employes the right to claim the work here in dispute. The employes were not unjustly dealt with since the work in question was a matter for the manufacturer to correct and the expense of changing the air compressors was borne by the manufacturer.
The numbering of the air compressors was performed simply for cataloging purposes since the company was assured that the air compressors would be changed to meet the company's standards.
Carrier asserts that the employes' claim in this dispute is entirely without support of the agreement and should be denied in its entirety.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
From the entire record in this case it is the opinion of this Board that the Carrier would not accept the compressors from the manufacturer until certain changes were made to meet its requirements or specifications. The manufacturer dispatched two of its representatives, at its own expense, to Carrier's shop to make the compressors acceptable to Carrier.
We must conclude that the compressors were not the property of the carrier at the time the work was performed by the manufacturer, and therefore the work as claimed herein was not the work of the carrier. The Board fails to find .that the work for which claim is made is within the category of the agreement. We find the controlling agreement was not violated. (See 2nd Division Awards 1901 and 2823.)
The majority in finding that the work performed was not "* * * within the category of the agreement * * * " ignores the fact that the agreement between this carrier and System Federation No. 97, governing the employ- 2912-6 70