Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6965
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6862
 2-SCL-CM-' 75



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:











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, 1934.

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

Mr. G. M. Poole was employed as a Carman-Painter on June 30, 1972. On August 5, 1972, the instant claim was filed, as set out in the Claim of Employes. G. M. Poole had eight years of painting experience in outside industry at the time of his employment by the Carrier on June 30, 1972.
 Form 1 Award No. 6965
 Page 2 Docket No. 6862
 2-SCL-CM-'75

 The organization contends G. M. Poole does not meet the requirements of a Carman-Painter under Rules 15, 26(a), 46(w), 99 and 100 of the Agreement.





Rule 15 provides, "There shall be four roster-divisions of Carmen's craft," a "Painter" is one of 'h,.~e roster divisions. They have separate. seniority in a class and craft of their own.

 Rule 46(w) provides the schedule for regular apprentices showing a division of time on various classes of work as a guide to be followed as closely-as'conditions will permit:



The Organization contends that G. M. Poole is not a qualified Carman Painter under the terms of the Agreement. They contend he has not had the required apprenticeship training. They contend further that he has not had the requisite "Four years practical experience at Carmen's work" (Rule 99). The Organization insists that the four years practical experience must be in the railroad industry; that the word Carman is itself a railroad industry term; and that there is no place except in the railroad industry itself that a journeyman can gain experience in painting freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives.

 The Carrier contends that the Agreement was not violated. The Carrier points out that there were no furloughed painters on the seniority roster, and that of the two Painter Helpers available to be set up to Painters, one declined and the other was medically restricted. The Carrier contends that there is positively no requirement or provision in Rule 99, quoted above, or Rule 100, Classification of Work, that a journeyman mechanic, in the present case a Journeyman Painter, must secure the required training or experience
 Form 1 Award No. 6965
 Page 3 Docket No. 6862
 2-SCL-CM-'75

 in the railroad industry. The Carrier further contends that the long established practice on the property supports this view.

 Both sides cite to us a number of cases that support their positions: and both sides ably distinguish each others cases. For example, the Carrier cites Award 967, involving the Machinists trade and this same carrier, which considered the issue of railroad experience versus outside industry experience. In Award 967, the Machinists Organization argued that an auto mechanic with more than four years experience in outside industry did not have the requisite experience in the machinists trade to qualify him to work on railroad equipment in the Locomotive Department. The Board in that case found no violation of the Agreement. The Organization cites, among others, Award 3375 involving the Union Pacific Railroad Co. and the status of a CarmanUpholsterer. The Board in that case found that the employe's experience as an upholsterer in outside industry at the time of his employment had no bearing upon the requisite qualification under a rule similar in language to Rule 99 of the instant case.

 As evident from the conflicting interpretations given language similar to Rule 99, in the Awards cited to this Board, we find that the language of Rule 99, as it relates to the entirety of the Agreement, is capable of bearing the interpretation of the organization and is capable of bearing the interpretation of the Carrier as well. We thus find Rule 99 to be ambiguous. It is settled beyond question that where the contract language is ambiguous, the past practice of the parties may properly be used to give meaning to the ambiguous language of the Agreement of the parties. The Carrier has consistently interpreted "four years practical experience at carman's work" to mean four years experience in the trade of a painter. In accordance with the Carrier's consistent interpretation of the Agreement, and Rule 99, the Carrier has in Exhibits C-9 and C-10 given the names of 15 employes over the past thirty years who were placed on the Painters' Seniority Roster on the date of first service, and none of the employes listed had any previous railroad painting experience. Each of these Carmen Painters employed over the 30-year-period had their names placed on the :Painter's Seniority Roster, and the Union representatives are furnished copies of all seniority rosters of their craft. Rule 15 requires that seniority lists be posted on bulletin boards and allows that the lists may be protested during the year in which the roster is posted. The Union made no protest or complaint concerning any of the fifteen Carmen Painters hired over the thirty-year-period. We find the practice on the property is so totally well established that the Organization cannot reasonably claim a lack of knowledge of such a practice. We therefore must deny the claim.


Form 1 Page

 Award No. 6965
 Docket No. 6862
 2-SCL-CM-'75

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By G
 Tv~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago,- Illinois, this 14th day of Naventber~ 1975.