Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6413
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6227
 . 2-L&N-FT-' 73. .



Parties to Dispute: ( (Federated Trades)

Dispute: Claim of Employes: .





Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
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.
its Main Shops Storeroom, located in Louisville Kentucky, a piece of equipment called
 a Raymond-Fork Lift. Storeroom clerks and clerk laborers were assigned to use and
 operate this mechanical device in the transport of parts and materials in and about
 the storeroom- storage of same in bins and on shelves' : and selections, removal, and
 gathering of same for distribution to shops and yards as and when required.

 Petitioner and claimants charge that Carrier's assignment of operation of the iymond-Fork Lift to employees other than regularly classified tractor or fork lift aerators violated Rule 142 of the controlling agreement between Petitioner and Carrier.

Form 1 Award No. 6413
 Page 2 Docket No. 6227
 2,I&N-F_I,-,7

It is noted that the Organization representing the clerks and clerk laborers intervened in support of Carrier's assignment of the work to the classifications it represents.

            Rule 142 reads:


                  "RULE 142 - TRACTOR OPERATORS


            The positions of tractor operators, with movable and stationary booms, and operators of tractors with lifting table, load luggers, motor car operators, (engaged in handling material and repair parts in shops and yards) employed in mechanical and stores departments will be covered by the rules of this agreement and will be represented by the craft to which assigned."


In Award 6266 and Awards cited therein, this Board endeavored to delineate
 the concepts upon which we rely in dealing with assignment of work disputes, parti
 cularly when the claims relate to the use of certain equipment.
 In Award 4.690 (Daly), a dispute involving the same parties, a very similar
 set of facts,at a'ciifferent location, carefully considered and at length dealt with
 the problem raised in the submission before us. tie found that: "2. That Stores
 Department employees may properly use and operate lift trucks when handling Stores
 Department materials around their own Shop."
 Petitioner seeks to distinguish the circumstances involved herein from those
 entailed in Award 4690. It endeavors to impress upon us that we did not mean to
 include this type of lift truck therein, and that our finding was limited to "manual
 and/or battery powered lift trucks of the small hand-operated type". A careful review
 of the Award does not reveal such intent. In fact, Petitioner repeatedly states that
 it does not object to "the clerks and laborers operating the Raymond-Fork Lift when
 riding up and down on the platform.of the machine to 'hand pick' parts and materials
 in filling orders, or in putting away stock". Thus, it does not allege that the use
 of the equipment by the clerks is violative of Rule 142. It further admits that
 Storeroom clerks and clerk-laborers properly used manual and/or battery operated lift
 trucks to move materials, parts and tubs containing same in and about the Storeroom.
 Its contention is that this new type of lift truck has obviated the need to call in,
 from elsewhere in the Yard and Shops, a fork-lift truck operated by one of the claimants
 to perform lifting and movement of goods which the smaller equipment was incapable of,
 doing. It cannot be held that this was not adequately covered by the above quoted
 findings in Award 4690 and we cannot hold that the introduction of new types of .
 equipment to perform the permitted functions was in anyway restricted therein.
 Third Division Award 10911 sets forth the fundamental rule applicable hereto,
 as follows:
 "When the Division has previously considered and
 disposed of a dispute involving the same parties,
 same rule and similar facts presenting the same t
 issue as is now before the Division, a prior
 1
 I
 Form 1 Award No. 6413
 Page 3 Docket NQ. 6227
 2-I&N-FT,'73

            decision should control. Any other standard would lead to chaos .


            ... in the absence of any showing that (previous)

            Awards are patently erroneous (and no such showing

            was made) we must follow them ..."


            (See Second Division Award 6109)'


Petitioner does not endeavor to have the ruling in Award 4690 declared erroneous. Its authority remains in full force and effect and precludes our su$taining the claim herein.

                          A WA R D


        Cl4im denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILZQAD ADJUSTMMT- HOARD By Order of Second Division


tlttest : .w
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd. day of January, 1973.

 C

.I