Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJf.B TMENT BOARD Award No. 7,140
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6952-T'
 2-SCL-SM-'76



Parties to Dispute:

Dispute:. Claim of Employes:






Findtrrgs : ..

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

 The carrier ox carrier 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.

When Carrier assigned Roadway Mechanics to repair a four (4) inch water line within the shop yard, the Organization submitted a claim asserting a violation of Rule 85:











Form 1 Award No. ; Z.%a0
 Page 2 Docket No. 6952-T
 2-scz-sM-'76
 "of anr, water, gas= ^.il , ~rv.d. steam pipes; the operation of
 babbit f ir~a s,zzO pi.ro f'. :w~L:i.y ma ch:i.nes; oxy -acetylene,
 thei^mit and e1ectri~;~ ~;;:lC.:~r~g on, work generally recognized as
 sheet metal workers' 'aox°k as provided in Rule 27, and all
 other work generally rcc~or=;n.,zed as sheet metal workers' work."

 Carrier has denied a violatir:;,, and th~, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, by means of Third Party ;participation, supports Carrier's position.

 The employees have singes+ed'thaCarrier failed to notify Claimants within the sixty (60j day time _f.i:nit of the pertinent rule. Carrier insists that they paxtiea had-agreed to waive time limits. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that time h.mit~.~were waived. In addition, Carrier has stated that the employees have failed to follow the proper procedures for disposing of jurisdictional disputes as contained in the December, 1967 Agreement. The Organization denies that said Agreement controls. Our dispvsition of the dispute herein makes it unnecessary for us to decide the matted.
The Claimants contend. that the work in question falls specifically within the phrase "pipefitting within shop areas" as stated in Rule 85 and, according to the Organization, no evidence of past practice may alter thq blear language of the Agreement. We do not agree that the contractual language under review is so specific as to render meaningless a showing of prior job performance.

 taxri6r asserts that the duties in question have historically belonged to Maintenance of Way employees, and have been performed by other than Maintenance of Way forces, only in cases of emergency. Moreover, it points to Rule 5, Sectiofi `2 of the Maintenance of Way Agreement:



Not only do the parties rely upon diverse Awards of this Division (6056 and 2+83), they have submitted "factual" statements which purport to support their respective contentions concerning past practice. While certain suggestions have been offered which contend that a close scrutiny of the statements indicate that they can be read in harmony - we disagree. We feel that the statements are apposing, and reach different conclusions.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 714p
 Docket No. 6952-T
 2-SCZtSM-'76

 Moreover, although the claim refers to "repair" work, we note, both ip the recor(:i.. and at the Referee Ha .rirw., the Organization made references to "installation." Those concents are not synonomous.

 While, in the final ana,lyEls, a disposition of a case under the burden of proof concepts may not be ideally dispositive of a dispute; nonetnQ3ess, under this record, we are compelled to follow that concept, The Organization has submitted the claim and thereby has assumed a burden of propf. We are unable to find that the evidence of bast practice preponderates to the benefit of either party and, accordingly, we must dismipS the claim for faif4re of proof.

 Claim dismissed.

 Attest: Executive SecxQtaxy
 National. Railroad Adjustment Beard
By ~.~.~' _

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT $QARD

By Order of Second Division

Immool