tion that the building and installation of diesel platforms by Shop Extension Department forces is confined to the particular points where such forces had previously installed that particular fixture or item of equipment. Furthermore, and as shown in the caxrier's statement of facts, the seniority of Shop Extension Department employes is not restricted to a single point, but under Rule 28(b) 2 extends over a grand division, or in this case the entire Western Lines, including Albuquerque, the location involved in this dispute.

It will be apparent from the above that the handling complained of in this dispute stems from an established practice that has extended over a period of more than thirty (30) years and throughout revisions of the agreement without abrogation. The actions of the employes and their representatives clearly denote that they are through the medium of their claim in the instant dispute, requesting the Board to grant them that which they have, by their own actions, previously recognized is not required under the agreement rules.

In conclusion, the carrier respectfully reasserts that the employes' claim in the instant dispute is wholly without support under the governing agreement rules and the long-standing practices thereunder, and should, for reasons expressed herein be dismissed or denied in its entirety.

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 hebein.

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

In 1957, the Carrier decided to install a certain Diesel Repair Platform (DRP) in its Diesel Repair Shops at Albuquerque, New Mexico. This DRP was one of five such DRPs which had previously been constructed and installed by Shop Extension Department (SED) forces, who are represented by the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, at the Carrier's Diesel Repair Shops at Argentine (Kansas City), Kansas. The DRP here involved (together with the other four DRPs) was dismantled and removed from the Argentine shops by SED forces and shipped in sections to the Albuquerque shops where SED forces were also assigned to reconstruct and install it on or about October 28, 1957. Said DRP is thirty feet long (excluding the steps at each end), over five feet high, and eight feet wide. It is secured in place by ten heavy studs which are permanently anchored to the floor of the shop building and which extend up through six steel channels forming the base of the platform.

The two Claimants who are Boilermakers contend that the work performed in connection with the building of the scaffold of the DRP at the Albuquerque shops should have been assigned to them and was improperly assigned to SED forces.

For the reasons hereinafter stated, we are of the opinion that the instant claim is without merit.

1. The Claimants chiefly rely on Rule 61 of the labor agreement which

contains a detailed description of the various types of work coming under the jurisdiction of the Boilermakers' craft. However, Rule 61 is qualified by a special rule incorporated in Item 23 of Appendix B to the agreement. Said Item supersedes, in pertinent instances, the general rule as to work jurisdiction which otherwise might be applicable to the dispute at hand. See: Awards 2251 of this Division and 6651 of the Third Division.

Item 23 reads, as far as pertinent, as follows-

"The classification of work rules of the General Agreement shall not change existing practices of handling certain classes of work by . . . Shop Extension Forces . . . it being understood that such work may be continued to be performed by employes of the different classes of either group until and when survey has been made and a definite line of demarcation can be agreed to with the organizations involved."

The pivotal question which presents itself for adjudication is whether a practice of assigning to SED forces the construction and installation of DRPs of the same or substantially similar type as the one under consideration, including specifically the component work here in dispute, existed prior to the effective date of the labor agreement (August 1, 1945) and whether such practice has consistently been followed thereafter. The answer is in the ,affirmative.

The evidence on the record considered as a whole reveals beyond a doubt that SED forces have performed all the work connected with the construction and installation of such DRPs in numerous instances at various work locations within the geographical area of seniority district covered by the labor agreement, both prior to and after August, 1945, until the instant grievance arose in October, 1957. The Claimants have not contested the Carrier's statement that in none of those instances did the Boilermakers file a complaint or claim. Their continued failure to protest the practice must be construed as an acceptance thereof.

Accordingly, we hold that a firmly established practice well-known to and accepted by all interested parties under which SED forces were assigned work of the same or substantially similar nature as that here complained of has existed at the Carrier's property and that such practice has been observed for a considerable period of time extending beyond the effective date of the labor agreement. Said practice has therefore, become a part of the agreement-just as if it had been explicitly provided therein. See- Award 3873 (Docket 3838) of this Division. The fact that no DRP of the type here involved was ever installed at the work location in question (Albuquerque shops) is immaterial. In the absence of a specific contractual provision or a recognized past practice to the contrary, the labor agreement necessarily applies to the entire geographical area or seniority district covered by it and must be interpreted uniformly with respect to all work locations situated within such area or district. See: Award 3495 of this Division. The labor agreement does not contain any provision exempting the construction and installation of DRPs, of the type here involved from the application of the practice, as found by us hereinbefore. Nor does the record reveal any contrary past practice. This point is more fully discussed below. Since the SED forces who performed the work under consideration hold Grand Division seniority on the Carrier's Western Lines, including Albuquerque, New Mexico, pursuant to Rule 28(b) (2) of the agreement, the assignment of the work here in dispute to them was

controlled by the above discussed existing practice which has become a part of the agreement.

Hence, we hold that the Carrier was rightfully entitled, on the basis of the existing past practice and in accordance with Item 23, to assign the work in question to SED forces instead of to the Claimants.

2. In further support of their claim, the Claimants rely on Item 1 of Appendix B to the labor agreement which provides, in essence, that controversies as to craft jurisdiction shall first be settled by the contesting organizations and that existing practices shall be continued until the Carrier has had a reasonable opportunity to reach an understanding with the organizations involved. It is undisputed that certain DRPs were constructed and installed by Boilermakers at the Carrier's Albuquerque shops several years ago. The Claimants argue, therefore, that a practice of assigning such work to Boilermakers has existed at said shops which the Carrier violated in the instant case.

The flaw in that argument is that those DRPs were not of the same or substantially similar type as the one here involved. The record shows that they were portable and -not permanent platforms. They were not firmly secured to the floor of the building in any manner but could be moved from one pit or track location to another by use of a shop or roundhouse traveling overhead crane. They were also smaller and considerably lighter than the DRP under consideration. In brief, the construction and installation of those portable DRPs involved a different type of equipment than that with which we are here concerned. The Claimants themselves recognize this difference because they do not claim jurisdiction for Boilermakers over the fastening of the scaffold in question to the floor of the building (Organization Exhibit 6, p. 2). Moreover, the difference was emphasized by Local Chairman Galvan of the Sheet Metal Workers who, in claiming jurisdiction over the installation of the DRPs. at Albuquerque, New Mexico, stated: "This being a permanent installation this work is considered Shop Extension" (Carrier Exhibit E; emphasis ours).

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that whatever practice may have existed with respect to the construction and installation of portable DRPs at the Carrier's Albuquerque, New Mexico, shops has no bearing on the disposition of the instant claim which concerns a permanent DRP. As a result, we fall to see a violation of Item 1 of Appendix B on the part of the Carrier.

3. Finally, the Claimants rely upon a letter, dated January 6, 1959, from General Chairman Duffey of the Sheet Metal Workers' Association (Organization Exhibit 1) in which he waived jurisdiction over the work here in dispute. The waiver was executed many months after the work in question was performed. It was also restricted to the Carrier's Diesel Repair Shops at Albuquerque, New Mexico, and expressly did not apply to any other work location covered by the labor agreement. It is doubtful whether the waiver can be applied retroactively to the instant dispute. There is no need to resolve this issue. In any event, the waiver, if assigned the effect contended for by the Claimants, would, for all practical purposes, constitute a modification of the existing and valid practice through unilateral action instead of through mutual agreement or through the use of the procedure prescribed in Item 23 of Appendix B. For this reason, the waiver can have no effect and force.

4. Since we have denied the instant claim on its merits, it becomes un-

AWARD