For reasons heretofore stated, the claim of named switchmen for a yard day's pay on specified dates should be and hereby is denied. However, that part of the claim for all subsequent dates when their claims of like character were declined by carrier cannot be determined under the evidence presented in this record, so they should be and hereby are dismissed without prejudice to either of the parties."

And in Third Division Award 6887 (Referee Rader), that Division sustained a part of a claim of the clerks' organization, finding that:

"We therefore, find Claim (a) should be sustained in part, that is, that this work, although not covered in the Scope Rule, has by custom and practice of years standing become a part of clerk's duties, and this finding relates to revenue cars only at the scale designated."

However, the Board also held:

"Claim (b) is denied by reason of insufficient showing that the clerk on duty at the time in question could not have weighed these two revenue cars."

That well established principle is equally applicable to this present claim and, by itself, requires a denial thereof.

There is no basis for the organization's contention that sheet metal workers have the exclusive right to perform the work in question. Accordingly, the entire claim, which is predicated upon that erroneous assumption should be denied for its lack of merit.

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 thereon.

This claim is filed in behalf of Sheet Metal Worker-Water Service employes who are employed at Los Angeles in the Carrier's Engineering and Maintenance Department. Although the claim refers to the connecting and disconnecting of both pipe and hose, the record discloses that the disputed work performed on specified dates by power house employes in the craft or class of "firemen and oilers" consisted only of connecting and disconnecting hose. This task was done for the purpose of unloading fuel oil from tank cars to supply the power house. The installation of the pipe necessary for the temporary unloading arrangement involved in this case was performed by Water Service employes.

The disputed work is not specifically stated in the governing scope rule for employes in the claimants' craft and class. The jurisdictional settlement cited by the Organization does not control the present case since this settlement was presented to and accepted by the Carrier only for a department

other than that in which the claimants are employed. Further, it has not been shown that the connecting and disconnecting of hose incidental to the unloading of fuel oil from tank cars has been performed exclusively by Water Service employes in the Sheet Metal Worker craft as a matter of past practice.

AWARD