ment thereon, and where a Carrier owns property used not in the operation or maintenance of its railroad, but for other and separate purposes, such property is outside the purview of the Agreement. The leased warehouse here involved was leased and used for purposes excluding it from the Agreement."

Again, for example in Award 5246 (Third Division) (BRS v. SIRT) (Boyd) is was held in part "* * * the Scope Rule of a Collective bargaining agreement covers only the work thereunder which is or may be undertaken by the Carrier in connection with its operation of its railroad."

Again, for example in Award 7442 (Third Division) (BMWE v. UP) (Shugrue) it was held in part: "We find that the operation of the timber treating plant was not connected with railroad operations and that the scope of the agreement did not confer upon maintenance of way employes the exclusive right to perform new construction work of this nature and under the circumstances of this docket on property leased by the carrier in an industry not directly involved in railroad operations."

In this Division's Award 3435 (EW v IC) (Referee Murphy) claim was denied with the following findings

"The carrier owned a warehouse at New Orleans but it had not been in use for a number of years.

As a matter of accommodation, various meat packers who desired space, were assigned portions of Warehouse No. 1 to expedite the unloading, segregation and delivery of their products. Mr. William J. Schroeder was permitted to use a portion of the warehouse and found it necessary for his use to add electrical conduits, wiring, etc. The organization contends that under the agreement this work, which was contracted by Mr. Schroeder to a local firm, was work that should have been done by claimants.

We are unable to find any violation of the agreement in this case. The purpose of the agreement between the carrier and the organization is to provide rules and regulations for the orderly operation of their common business, which is the operation of the railroad.

The record in the instant case does not show that the carrier was using this warehouse for its own operation, in fact, it reveals that it was used for the sole purpose of Mr. Schroeder, for other purposes which are outside the purview of the agreement."

The carrier submits in the instant case that the claim is without merit at all of its parts. The carrier respectfully requests that this claim be denied at all its parts.

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.

The work in question constituted the heavy overhaul of four freight elevators which was necessary to permit the use of rented out premises, and was performed by the Elevator Repair & Construction Company of Pittsburgh, under a required permit from the Pennsylvania State Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Inspection, Division of Elevators. The Otis Elevator Company had without protest performed a similar heavy overhaul job in 1952 but was apparently unwilling to attempt it again.

The electrical work constituted an integral but certainly not a major part of the project, and the record does not indicate that it could reasonably have been segregated from the whole. Under analogous circumstances similar claims have been denied by this Division. Awards 2186, 2377, 2458, 3278, 3433, 3461 and 3559.

AWARD