orm 1 NA`r TONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6493
 SECCND DIVISION Docket No. 6301
 2-MP-SMW-'73
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Sheet Metal Workers)


Dispute: Claim of Erployes:



indings:

 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.

Carrier maintains a shop at North Little Rock,. Arkansas for repair of locomotive and other equipment. In addition to the mechanical shops, there is a Material Department Distribution Center totally occupied by Stores Department personnel, in a separate building. This personnel is represented by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, -Express and Station Employes. The work in dispute was performed by Materials Department employes. The iror:; consisted of removing steel bins from upright shelving and installing in their place prefabricated adjustable sheet metal drawers. Guide supports for the drawers were bolted onto the shelving uprights in pre-drilled holes with bolts supplied by the manufacturer. The tools used were wrenches supplied to fit the bolts and pliers, and possibly screw drivers. The Third Party union was duly notified but did not ntervene.

Form 1 Award No. 6493
 Page 2 Docket No. 630
 2-MP-SMW-173

 Sheet met.al Workers claim the work by reason of Qualifications Rule 96, and Classification of Work Rule 97 which states in part: "; the building, erecting, assembling, installing, dismantling (for repairs only), and maintaining parts made of sheet --- metal. --- of 10 guage and lighter ---." Second Division Awards No's. 135`0, 2357, 2372, 5618, 5950, 6063, 6117, are submitted in support of sheet metal worker's right to work within their Classification of Work Rules.

 Carrier contends that the material bins or drawers are not affixed to the building, are adjusted as needed by store room personnel who have always done this work and that since the original installation by contractors many years earlier, it has been a function of the Materials Department under the jurisdiction of the Purchasing and Materials Department. The claim was also rejected because the work was not shop worn for Mechanical Department according to the statement in the Agreement as follows: "It is understood that this Agreement shall apply to those who perform the vorl; specified in this ogreement in the Maintenance of Equipment Department and in the Reclamation Plant at Palestine, Texas." The carrier submitted prior Second Division Awards No's. 4368, 622' and 5 BA No. 570, Award No. 187 with reference to Classification of Work kale. In support of their major contention, carrier submitted Second Division Awards No's 2695, 3171, 3172 and 6253.
The Awards submitted by the Organization uphold the right to perform sheet metal work specified in Classification rules so long as the work includes the tools and skills of the craft. This was applied to the assembling of material racks on which holes were drilled with tools and parts from the Mechanical Department. Thai work was done within a shop building under the jurisdiction of the Maintenance of Equipment Department, Award 5618. In another case Sheet Metal Workers were Awarded the work under their classification rule but under circumstances which do not involve the facts of this case, Award 2372. One case referring to assembly and installation of lockers favored sheet metal workers over another craft also because of classification rule, where the lockers were installed within Mechanical Department Smith Shop for Mechanical Department Forces, Award 5550. Awards 2357 and 6063 also found is favor of sheet metal workers over another craft in the assembling of lockers to be used by Mechanical Department Forces in their locker rooms in Mechanical Department Buildings. These Awards do not include the facts of the present case.

 More to the point in favor of the Organization is Award No. 6117 wherein electrical workers were awarded wcrk under their classification rule over signalmen for wore performed in the signal shop. In that case the Agreement included the understanding that the rules applied only to those performing work in the Maintenance of Equipment Department. However, that case was followed by a recent Award No. 6253 ,which involved assembling and installing of prefabricated lockers in the Store Department by clerks (as in the present case). The sa:.ie carrier was a party as in Award No. 611 7 and the same Agreement ~~·.-.-_:s applicable. As in the present case, sheet metal wor':ers :zero tho claimants. In the rcccnt d.?cis?.or_, on fac;a directly parallel with _:A present case, it eras found that: "The wcrl_: --- was a relatively simple procer'ure. The classiric::'icn of ::orl= rzille ut*tna ---9 but such i~or?_ oust be performed in the Reclamation Plant and is inten^iicc .ai Eqqui-n cent Dcpartt^1F nt."

                                                            1W I

!' (~i 'l 1 AL7u_-r.I NO.
                                              x+93

                                              Doc'_cet No. 6:301

                                              2-MP-Sr*a- ' 73


We need not argue over the veanind of classification of work rule. The issue in this case is whether or not it applies to the present situation. Second Division Award No. 353' stated. in the Findings, vith reference to erecting, assembling and installing shelving in the storehouse department claimed by sheet
 metal workers, the following: "--- the shelving and frames were not fabricated j
 or constructed on the property but were purchased prefabricated ---- and came
 knoc',:-down, to be assembled without tools or mechanical s'l.;ills. They were set
 up in the storeroom by the storekeeper and. his assistant to replace wooden shelving
 formerly used. This was not building, erecting, assembling, installing or fabricating,
 such as wou_1d customarily be done by sheet metal worq:ers, a.rd the claim should be
 denied."

 Ai:cxds No's 3171 and 3172 are cited in Award No. 5253, discussed above, and are referred to here because the carrier in those tyro cases is the same as in this case. T'h^ Agreement is the sa-it including the understanding that it shall
 ar & - -
 ply to th~,Ge ~.-Iin T)crf(-r.-n tho wi;r': specified in the Agreement in the Maintenance of Equipment Department. Tae cl airis of shop craft unions in both cases were denied because the wo: ;: vas net -serf:armed in the %iaintenance of Equipment Department and the A~eenent did not apply.

 The effect to be given to restrictive language of the agreement wasp again der:ons Crated, in Award ado. 2695. Sheet metal workers claimed the right to inste?1 metal loc':ers Pre-fabricated and prepared for easy assembly in the yard offices. The Agreement -.:-as restricted to emplo-yes who perform work outined in the Agreement in the Maintenance of Equipment Department among other uepartments specified. the claim was denied because the disputed work was not performed in a department specified in the agreement.

 Petitioner has the burden to prove its case. The weight of the decisions favor the carrier under the facts of this case. The cla: sification of work: rule of the sheet :petal workers is not in dispute. First to be considered is whether
 or not the Agreement applies to this situation. Evidently the agreement of the i
 parties to restrict the work specified in the Agreement to the Maintenance of
 Eq'aipment Department is controlling. This is not a bar to uor:: of the craft
 being assigned outside the shop but it restricts the right to demand the work.
 The affidavits o-" sheet i:,etal wor'ters that their work has been performed for
 the Materials Department is not inconsistent with this finding.

                          A W A R D


        Claim Denied


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSTi0dT BOARD Rj Order of Second Division i

                                                              i


Attest: .~s.,~lts/
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicagc, Tliincis, this 2nd day. of Aia·, 1973.
                                                              i


                                                              i