From the foregoing, we thing it must be clear that the work here in dispute has never been recognized as boilermakers' work, neither has it been the practice for boilermakers to perform such work.

In paragraph 3 of carrier's submission, we referred to Decision SC-67 MW-67 and Supplement No. 1 to Decision SC-67 MW-67, which are submitted herewith as carrier's Exhibits B and B-1.

If we turn to those agreements, we find the issues here raised were settled in 1940 when the carrier entered into an agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, International Association of Machinists and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and a similar issue was settled in 1944 when the carrier entered into an agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. The principles here put forth by the carrier, supported by agreement and practice, were recognized by the parties to those agreements, and it should be observed that the work was by agreement allocated as between the Maintenance of Way employes and the Maintenance of Equipment employes in the same manner as it has been allocated between the Maintenance of Way employes and the boilermakers of the Maintenance of Equipment Department in the instant case, as well as in prior cases as established by the practice throughout the entire property.

Insofar as the carrier knows this is the first claim involving a situation similar to the one here, although the described work has always been performed in substantially the same manner as in the instant case.

There is no basis for these claims and they should therefore be declined.

FINDINGS: The .Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employer 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.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The employes state that on or about March 14, 1955, repairs were started on the transfer table then used at the Old Coach 'Shop in North Little Rock. The boilermakers were first assigned by Master Mechanic Dunkin to start these repairs and later removed and the work assigned to the steel gang of the Maintenance of Way Department. The work consisted of cutting out the rivets and bolting the table back together and reinforcing the new I-beams that were to be used in the job. The I-beams are reinforced by welding 1/2" x 6" bar iron on each side, making a total of 689 feet of welding. In addition to this work, there was other work of reassembling transfer table, bolting it together, and redriving the rivets; that the carrier violated Rule 62 (a) and past practice as the work of rebuilding and repairing of the transfer table at North Little Rock is work that belongs to the boilermaker craft; that the transfer table is a piece of machinery used by the employes of the Maintenance of Equipment Department; that the work of repairing the transfer table is work coming under the terms of Maintenance of Equipment Department Agreement; that the boilermakers previous to the instant case have always maintained the transfer table at North Little Rock.

The carrier states that the complete Dieselization of its road was accomplished during 1955; that in order to provide servicing and repair facilities at one of its machine shop points, the entire mechanical facilities at Little Rock were converted into a modern locomotive servicing and repair shop; that to utilize the 70 foot transfer table, it was necessary to rebuild the transfer table by strengthening the structural members of the table and replacing the footings which support the table, running rails with larger footings to carry the heavier loads; that the work in question was performed by Maintenance of Way employes.

From a careful reading of the submissions of the parties it is the finding of this Board that the claimants have always performed the necessary repairs to transfer tables whether they be emergency or otherwise. That Rule 62 (a) does not give to these grievants the exclusive right to perform the work outlined therein.

The question to be decided by this Board is whether or not the rebuilding of the transfer table at North Little Rock was work which belonged to the boilermakers under past practice and Rule 62 (a) of the effective agreement. From the submissions we conclude that although the boilermakers have in the past made repairs to transfer tables on this property, that they have failed in their proof to show that they have rebuilt transfer tables on the property. Therefore, we find, that the carrier did not violate the effective agreement when it gave the work of rebuilding the transfer table at North Little Rock to the Maintenance of Way Department.

AWARD