Parties to Dispute:


                    (

                    ( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company


    Dispute: Claim of Employes:


            1. That the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company violated the controlling Agreement, particularly Rule 87 and Circular Letter No. 3012 dated March 5, 1954, signed by Mr. J. F. Pyan at Louisville, Kentucky on February 16, 1973 when they improperly assigned Boilermakers the duty of removing and replacing hood and braces made of tin and pipe on tractor.


            2. That accordingly the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company be ordered to comroensate Sheet Metal Worker G. T. Mar sh four (4) hours at the pro rata rate of pay for such violation.


i
    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, 193+.


    This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


        Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.


    The initial question to be determined in this dispute is whether this Board has jurisdiction to consider the claim.


    The Organization contends that Carrier improperly assigned BoilermaO:ers certain work that belonged to the Sheet Metal Workers in violation oOrganization's Classification of Work Rule.


    The Boilermakers nave joined Carrier in asserting that this matter

    should be settled by procedures provide. in Appendix of the Agreemunlt

    signed by both crafts involved in this dispute.

Form 1 Award No. 6564
 Page 2 Docket No. 6721
 2-L&N-SM-'75

 Second Division Award No. 6825 between the same parties, recently decided, is virtually identical to this dispute. We quote its findings:

 "The claim herein was filed by the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association premised on the contention that Carrier improperly assigned to employees of the Boilermakers' craft work accruing to Sheet Metal Workers. The work consisted of the cutting, fitting, bending and welding of pipes for hood braces and the cutting, fitting and welding of metal hood to be used as the top for a Hyster. Representatives of the Boilermakers intervened in the claim and filed an ex p ante submission contending, inter alia, that the work in question is reserved to them by Rule 70, their Classification of Work Rule. The Sheet Metal Workers, however, claim that since the material used was changed from angle iron to tubing, the work accrues to them by Rule 87, their Classification of Work Rule.

 "Since both the Sheet Metal Workers and the Boilermakers are claiming exclusive right to perform the work subject of this dispute, it is readily apparent to this Board that a jurisdictional dispute exists herein. Consequently, we conclude that the Board has no jurisdiction to render a, decision on the merits of the claim. All the parties before us, including the Sheet Metal Workers, are signatories to a letter Agreement appearing in Appendix A of the pertinent Agreement agreed to on October 31, 1949. That agreement mandates that when two organizations signatory thereto claim the right to perform work, they shall reach an agreement and settle any disputes that exist between them relative to the disputed work before any claim can be submitted to the Carrier.

 "Appendix A is a valid and legally operative agreement, entered into in good faith by both the Boilermakers and Sheet Metal Workers. It provides the machinery to be followed by those Organizations when a dispute arises involving jurisdiction of work. Consistent with that Agreement it was incumbent on the Sheet Metal Workers to meet with the Boilermakers in order to resolve this dispute over the work in question. No exceptions to this requirement are contained in the Agreement and we have no jurisdiction to impose any under the guise of contract interpretation. Until such time as the parties decide to abrogate Appendix A, we feel compelled to apply it to jurisdictional disputes such as the one now before us. Based on the foregoing we will decline to accept jurisdiction over this dispute."
 Form 1
 Page 3

 Award No. 63641
 Docket No. 6721
 2-L&N-SM-'75

 That claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and this Board sees no reason to do otherwise.

 A W A R D

 Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


      rsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May, 1975.