It seems unnecessary to point out that that statement does not constitute competent evidence. Since the statement is over the signature of the Shop Committee Chairman who initially submitted the claim on this property it could not, without factual evidence, be other than self serving. Aside from that fact, as established by the last paragraph thereof, the "information" contained therein is secondhand, in addition to which it actually gives no particulars whatever that could be used for comparative purposes such as dates of the alleged occurrence, and precisely what functions machinists performed in connection therewith. The reference to installation and removal of air compressors at the locations mentioned is far too general to permit any determination as to whether any work performed in said alleged installations or removals involved work of the character forming basis of this claim. While immaterial under the foregoing fact, attention is directed to contention in the hereinbefore quoted statement signed by Shop Committee Chairman to the alleged removal of apparently the same air compressor which was replaced in the instant case. However, no mention is made of any replacement compressor being installed or reason for removal of compressors at such time. As a matter of information, power plants at carrier's Bayshore Shops and Third Street (San Francisco) have been in effect for many years.

In this connection, it is conceded that machinists covered by the current agreement make certain repairs to air compressors in carrier's Bayshore Shops. For example, machinists tested valves and intercooler in preparation for placing the air compressor in service in the instant case. Also, such type of inspection and necessary repairs, other than those which may be performed under Rule 3, Firemen and Oilers' Agreement, quoted hereinbefore, are performed by machinists at Bayshore Shops after installation by Maintenance of Way Department employes.

The carrier's Engineering and Maintenance of Way and Structures Department is responsible for the installation of machinery and facilities on this carrier's property and neither Mechanical Department nor its employes are required to be acquainted with all the various codes, work and procedures required for such installation. It has been conceded by petitioner's General Chairman that machinists do not perform concrete, pipe or electrical work in such installations applicable to Mechanical Department machines, and except for general unsupported allegations such as referred to in Local Chairman's letter of January 25, 1961, no evidence has been furnished by claimant of any understanding, practice or application of Machinists' Classification of Work Rule 5'7 cited under which machinists have exclusively or otherwise performed the installation of air compressors at carrier's Bayshore Shops. Regardless thereof, since the within claim is concerned only with the installation of the involved air compressor in no event would the incident involving removal of air compressor referred to in foregoing statement have any bearing on the facts in this case.

CONCLUSION

Carrier asserts the instant claim is entirely lacking in agreement or other support and if not dismissed, requests that it be denied.

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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Carrier had a standby air compressor at its Bayshore Power House which became inoperative. It caused to have transferred as a replacement, a Joy Air Compressor which it had at its Mission Bay Roundhouse.

The inoperative compressor at Bayshore was anchored to two slabs of concrete, with a space between to allow for the rotation of the flywheel.

The Joy compressor dial not need such a space, and in fact it needed a fiat surface for placement .and operation.

On October 18 and 19, 1960 the Carrier used Bridge and Building mechanics to pour concrete_ place anchor bolts in position and place the Joy compressor on the bolts and fasten it in place.

This is the disputed work to which Claimants say they were entitled under the controlling agreement, citing the Scope Rule, and Rules 31, 33(a) and 57, and incidents of past practice.

The evidence of past practice presented in this record does not carry great weight, but whatever weight we should give it must fall under our interpretation of Rule 57, which reads as follows:

"Machinists' work shall consist of laying out, fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting, milling, and grinding of metals used in building, assembling, maintaining, dismantling and installing locomotives and engines (operated by steam or other power), pumps, cranes, hoists, elevators, pneumatic and hydraulic tools and machinery, scale building (in shops), shafting and other shop machinery; ratchet and other skilled drilling, reaming and tapping; tool and die making, tool grinding and machine grinding, axle truing, axle, wheel and tire turning and boring; engine inspecting; air equipment, lubricator and injector work, removing, replacing, grinding, bolting and breaking of all joints on superheaters; oxy-acetylene, thermit and electric welding on work generally recognized as machinists' work; the operation of all machines used in such work; including drill presses and bolt threaders using a facing, boring or turning head or milling apparatus; shipyard machinists' work; and all other work generally recognized as machinists' work."

This Rule is quoted out, of context in several places in this record by the Organization.

We hold that, it does not give to Machinists the work here involved, either in part or exclusively, nor does the Agreement before us disclose to whom such work belongs.

AWARD