Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

          (

          ( The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

          ( (Chesapeake District)


          Dispute: Claim of Employes:


                  1. That Engine Painter, E. J. Fisher's service rights and rules of the Shop Crafts Controlling Agreement were violated October 15, 1971 account being suspended of his duties and his work transferred to the carmen (engine carpenter) in violation of Supplement No. 5 of the Shop Crafts Agreement.


          . 2. Accordingly Fisher is entitled to be compensated five (5) days

                  each week at the engine painter straight time rate plus any

                  overtime that he would have worked had he not been cut off,

                  commencing October 15, 1971, to continue until such date Fisher

                  is restored to his position as engine painter.


          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 employee 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.


          Claim was filed on behalf of furloughed engine painter, E. J. Fisher account his position was abolished add Carrier using carmen to perform the engine painter work at Clifton Forge, Va. Petitioner relies on Supplement 5 of the Shop Crafts Agreement.


. Carrier maintains that having carmen at Clifton Forge perform the
          minimal amount of work formerly performed by painters was proper under


      ,.,.e.

          the provisions of Rule 32(e) of the applicable Agreement.


      ~:~ . _

Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 6729
 Docket No. 6491
 2-C8r0-CM-' 74

 Rule 32(c) was designed to give relief to Carrier in situations such as that before us where there is not sufficient work at points to justify employing a mechanic of each craft. When that occurs, Carrier is allowed to use another mechanic to perform the work of a craft not having a mechanic employed at that point. This was done in the claim before us when Carrier used a carman at Clifton Forge to perforce the minimal account of painting required thereat.

 In doing so, no provision of the applicable Agreement was violated and we are compelled to deny the claim.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


      osemarie Brasch - ' istrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of July, 197.