"* * * It in no manner restricts the carrier from having yardmen do this work."

In denying the claim of a yard foreman and his crew, the First Division, in Award 14570, concerned with a carman on duty or available, said:

"* * * Nothing in Rule 78 (a) makes it mandatory for carmen to be employed or on duty on every shift in every yard in the switching district. It is a managerial decision as to where the use of car inspectors is necessary, if decision is in good faith."

The carrier has shown that the work of coupling air hose does not belong exclusively to either carmen or trainmen and may be performed by either craft or class of employes. Further, it has always been the carrier's practice, both prior to the current carmen's agreement and since, when car inspectors report off duty, to review the work contemplated on that particular trick and only fill the job of the man who marked off when there is sufficient work for an extra man. In this instance there was not sufficient work to require the filling of the job of the regular man.

Awards of the various Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board support the carrier's position.

The carrier respectfully submits the claim is without merit and should be denied.

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

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

During the afternoon of November 13, 1957 a car inspector leader at the subject location was instructed to have someone couple air hose on a draft of 24 cars that had been marked for rush movement. When a yard crew arrived at about 9:45 P. M. this date to move these care it was found the hose had not been coupled. Upon being contacted on this matter, the car inspector leader advised he could not have an inspector couple the hose until after 11:00 P. M. The yard crew `vas then instructed to couple the hose, which was done.

One of the regularly assigned car inspectors on this trick had reported off duty on the date in question. The claim is that the carrier was required per Rule 48 (c) to fill this vacancy with an extra car inspector who would have performed the involved work. It is contended that because an extra inspector was not used, work belonging to car inspectors was improperly assigned to employes outside the agreement. Compensation is requested for

extra car inspector Stupka, who is said to have been available to fill the inspector vacancy.

Rule 48 (c) does not require the carrier to fill every vacancy due to absence with an extra man. The carrier may elect to permit a position to be blanked when the regular incumbent is absent. The organization would have a valid complaint if it were shown that due to the blanking of a position, work exclusively reserved to a craft or class of employes covered by the agreement was improperly assigned to others. No such showing can be made in the instant case, however. It is well settled that the coupling of hose incidental to the movement of trains is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of car inspectors (carmen).

AWARD