. (.Acjvance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD AUTUSTMTT BOARD Award No. 64;51
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6306
2-B&o-EW-' 73
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. Berg,-ran when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 30, Railway Employes'
.. .( . Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)

(lie Baltimore rind Ohio Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. , That under the current agreement, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company improperly assigned and used Electrician William Degenhardt to perform electric crane operator's work at the Glenwood Loeomot.ve Shops, P-Ettsburgh, Pennsylvania on the date.- of Dece;n.ber 28, 29, 30 and 31, 19?0.

2. That accordingly, the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-road road Company be ordered

to cormsensate, Claimant Operator C. W. Wprtman, senior furloughed

crane operator during this perio:2, eigli(u) hours pay each for

- December 29, 29, 30 end 31, 1970.

Findings

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the emrloye or er.ployes involved in this dispute axe respectively carrier and arLploye vi thin the leaning of the Railway Lato r 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's locomotive repair shop at Pittsburgh, Pennsyltrania, eras shut

down and cranezriem, arrrno others, were furloughed from close of business on
Deco. ~':^r 2'-? , tvntil January i~. This period was use: 7. to perform routine repair
anfJ. ^aintenance 11orlc for which mechanics of various crafts were kept on the job.
So.Me of the work ,.pus. to replace broken wizzdou panes. The tank shop crane in the
n :;en z.r~s v.'-3.h.zed. DY rxovinU it into posi';ioxl for :2~intelance of Way employes to
use the bri0gn of ~ble craDe as a scaffold, An e' ectrici an who was present to
'fin r~ "-r . -~, ,n-r·:,. <. q ; n n,7, i;o r.Cve i j,e cr 2.(16' rrom A'a.ime to vime as the

wort~ ^^ re ssol . .

ThF.! ()rr_-< <;; ~.,~ Z't.:?_Oi'i cla=ms, in ef T -c t". , t~:-a

'f: tx'ln 'iflPE::'"vnt cf the electric
.1-an- exc.us ?_',"!'~'~--Ai(? 'i''CT'l: o ''I'1F'. 7..~`·'.;^..^-., C~'~!'·Pl::?3."1 <?:Cl^.'. t~he

. ,, ~ he should have

i
Form 1 Award No. 6461
Page 2 Docket No. 630~

been called in to move it. Both the electricians and cranemen are members~of the same Organization.

The record has become involved with claims and counterclaims about the work of the crafts and the rules and agreements pertaining to such crafts. We do not believe that discussion or interpretation of the rules and agreements as applied to this claim is required. .

The employes involved were performing work within their scope. Petitioner has not proven that all or any movement of an electric crane must be confined to a craneman. The crane was not being used for its customary and assigned purpose but was being used only as a substitute for a scaffold. Fourth Division Award No. 2620 and Second Division Award No. 6206, illustrate cases where equipment may be operated in isolated cases by other than the assigned operators so long as the equipment is not being operated to perform the work for which it is normally used and intended. In addition, the crane was not being moved continuously but only at intervals, consuming at most, as claimed by Petitioner, four hours a day.

In the absence of proof that cranemen have exclusive right to this work under these circumstances, we find that it was permissable for the electrician to perform the disputed work.

AW A R D

Claim denied.

C

NATIOi4TAL RAILROAD ADJUST4'MT BOARD By Order of Second Division

Attest: ' ~L .:
Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Tllinois, this 27t'--n day of February, 1973.