It is respondent's position claimants do not have jurisdiction of this work. Assuming without conceding they did, then it was proper to use employes of another craft under Article VII of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954.

POSITION OF THE CARRIER: It will be conceded we believe that claimants hold no roster rights in the work equipment department. It follows that they can claim no right to work under its jurisdiction. The claim should be denied at the outset on that basis.

There were, and are, no sheet metal workers employed within the work equipment department. Therefore, Article VII of the August 21, 1954 agreement applies:

"At points where there is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic for each craft, the mechanic or mechanics employed at such points will, so far as they are capable of doing so, perform the work of any craft that it may be necessary to have performed."

The work in question involved approximately 20 to 25 hours over a seven day work period, and during no day within such period was eight hours of the claimed work performed by the work equipment repairmen. Numerous awards of your Board in similar cases support the railroad's position that the insufficient work rule is applicable.

Further in support of the railroad's position that sheet metal workers held no right to the work in question, a similar situation exists at the Yard 8 shop. This is another department in close proximity to the point of claim. It is a seniority point separate: from the work equipment and Bridge and Building Departments. All piping and repairing of train lines on freight and milk cars, new piping, repiping and repairs to steam lines on milk cars, repairing and replacing of smoke pipes, stacks, and repairing of stoves in caboose cars are performed by carmen on duty at Yard 8 Shop.

The above is another case of application of the Insufficient Work Rule. There are numerous other locations and instances where the same condition exists, which is permissive under the rule, throughout the system.

Carrier's Exhibit C from Supervisor-Work Equipment, H. A. Thyng, supports the fact that the work in question has not been performed by sheet metal workers, and that sheet metal workers have not been employed at this point. Further, that work equipment repairmen in the field, numbering eight employes, presently perform any and all work of all classes under the shop craft agreement on the basis of having that right under the insufficient work rule without challenge by any craft.

While there is no merit to the claim of the petitioner, the 96 hours claimed is far in excess of the actual hours in which it took to perform the work.

All data and arguments herein contained have been presented to the organization in conference and/or correspondence.

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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing hereon.

The Sheet Metal Workers here allege violation of the effective agreement arising from assignment of machinist employes to perform work on a multiple tamper machine of the Maintenance of Way department.

The work in question arose in the Work Equipment Department. This unit has a distinct seniority roster and is under the Chief Engineer. It is located at East Somerville, Massachusetts in the Boston Yard Area. When this problem arose there were no sheet metal workers in the department.

The shop and headquarters point for the mentioned sheet metal workers is at East Cambridge also in the Boston Yard area and less than 1 mile from the location of the Work Equipment Department. It is under the supervision of the Bridge and Building Department which is also under the jurisdiction of the Engineer.

Since the work in controversy is clearly within the scope of Rule 88, the sheet metal worker classification rule, we need only determine whether the facts before us bring into play the exception set forth in Article VII of the August 21, 1954 agreement which reads:

"At points where there is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic of each craft the mechanic or mechanics employed at such point will so far as they are capable of doing, perform the work of any craft that it may be necessary to have performed."

What is the meaning of the term "points" or "at points" as it appears in Article VII? Does it refer to geographical locations or merely to different seniority rosters at the same location? In Second Division 3413 it was restricted to the latter but this decision had reference to a rule which is not before us here and custom was also shown in support of the restrictive ruling. Award 3527 is more nearly in point. There the claim vas denied but the "point" in that case was 126 miles distant from the headquarters of the sheet metal worker claimant. Thus this latter award furnishes a favorable contrast to the instant docket.

A further noteworthy factor here is that sheet metal workers were actually used for a companion job in respect to which a claim was initially made but later withdrawn. This appears in a letter, (an attached exhibit) from J. J. McDonald on behalf of the carrier. Thus it is feasible to use sheet metal workers in circumstances like the present.

We are convinced that the term "at points" means a geographic location; that Article VII, supra in circumstances like the present one must be considered a rule of necessity resulting from distance and not a rule of momentary expediency. Thus we conclude that the claims should be and they are hereby sustained. Nevertheless there must be remand to determine the exact number of hours - 32 as contended by the organization or 20 to 25 as urged by the Carrier.

AWARD