In relying on Rule 21, the only comment we find is the comment in last parragraph of carrier's Exhibit I. There the general chairman states that there can be no question that the scope and Rules 20 and 21 of the agreement were violated " * * * in the circumstances related herein * * *."

Rule 21 simply provides that none but mechanics classified as such shall do a mechanic's work. There are certain exceptions provided for foremen and for instances where cross craft operation is permissive where there is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic of each craft. This rule comes into being only after jurisdiction to do the work is determined from the scope rule. In the absence of the work being within the jurisdiction of the Mechanical Department of the Belt Line, Rule 21 is not applicable.

The employes also rely on Rule 33. This rule is simply a classification of work rule. We fail to find where the rule is applicable in the absence of jurisdiction to perform the work. Here again we find the condition where the rule is subordinate to the scope rule.

The claim is entirely without merit in its entirety and should be denied. An affirmative award in this case would create chaos and confusion insofar as the Belt Line operations and those of the Pacific Electric and Southern Pacific are concerned.

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 juisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

Compensation is here claimed on behalf of a Harbor Belt Line machinist as a result of the performance of 8 hours of machinists' work on two diesel units Nos. 1006 and 1016 which work was performed on January 16, 1959. Claim is also made on account of the performance of 2 hours of machinist work on Diesel Unit 5294.

The employes maintain that Harbor Belt Line owns no locomotives and that they are entitled to perform all inspection work, repairs and maintenance on locomotives assigned to Harbor Belt Line Railroad. They further argue that customarily they have performed work on locomotives which operate within the Belt Line Zone.

Carrier's position is that these locomotives were not assigned to Belt Line Service - that at most they had been engaged in delivering cars to the Belt Line territory for switching service. A list of locomotives which were actually assigned to Belt Line service is contained in the Carrier's rebuttal. The locomotives in question are not among these.

The scope clause of the basic agreement together with Rules 20 and 21 relating to seniority of employes and classification of work are cited by

employes and are not shown to be germane to this controversy. In fact, no rule of this agreement has been called to our attention which specifically covers the conditions under which Belt Line has jurisdiction for the purpose of rendering service like that which is here involved. The only criterion which both sides agree must be satisfied is that the equipment must have been assigned.

The controversy reduces itself to this: Both sides agree that the locomotives operated on Belt Line Property. The equipment was admittedly under the control of Pacific Electric and Southern Pacific crews. Both Carrier and employes agree that assignment to Belt Line is an essential to the existence of Belt Line jurisdiction. Were these locomotives assigned to Belt Line? Carrier maintains they were not assigned. Employes say that they were. How are we to determine whether the locomotives were assigned? We are furnished no rule, guide or other criterion by which to determine this. Section 30 of the Unified Contract for operations at Los Angeles Harbor seems to cover the problem but this is outside the record.

The burden of proof was on claimants to establish these claims and this burden could have been satisfied only by showing legal entitlement. A rule or principle recognizing entitlement based on actual operations in Belt Line Territory would have been necessary. Employes have failed to make such a showing and therefore have not carried their burden of proof. The letter of Master Mechanic Davis does not supply the deficiency.

AWARD