1'Urm i NATIONAL RAIT20AD :t;;1'IS'1MENT BOARD Award No. 72Ju
SECCND DIV1;31OF Docket No. 7052-T
2-PCT-EW-'77



( System Federation No. 1 (Formerly System Federation
( No. 152), Railway Employes' Department, AFL-CIO
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)





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.



Claimant is a regularly assigned Diesel Locomotive Repair Electrician. On the claim date, he performed certain fork lift duties concerning the movement of wheels; which work, he asserts, is properly performed under the: Carrier's Agreement with the BRAC. Claimant asserts that he is entitled to an additional three (3) hours of pay under Rule 2-A-1(e):



Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 7206
Docket No. 7052-T
2-PCT-EW-'77

"to another on the same shift, at the instance of Management, will receive an additional three (3) hours' pay at the straight time rate of the regular assignment he holds for each day he is required to work on another position."

Carrier notes that the February 10, 1965 Memorandum of Understanding .pertaining to the cited Rule specifies, in material part, that no payment is required unless the Employee is assigned to the performance of work not ordinarily included in the regular assignment for a period of four (4) hours or more.

Although the Organization concedes that the employee did not satisfy the four (4) hour test, it argues that the work in question "... was not within the jurisdiction, scope or providence of, the Electrical Workers and, accordingly, could not have been comprehended to e within the intent and application of the February 10, 1965 Memorandum of Understanding."

Carrier .denies that the work in question is exclusively performed by clerks and, in any event, states that such a distinction is meaninglaozs under the Memorandum.

We feel that the handling on the property disposes of the claim. Although. Claimant made the conclusionary statement that certain work came under the BRAC Agreement, and referred to certain bulletins, Carrier made specific reference to the fact that for .-a number of years, across the system, electricians have operated the equipment in question. We are unable to find that Claimant took issue with that factual assertion while the matter was under review on the property. Thus, with the matter in that posture, the four (4) hour rule is clearly in issue.

A W A R D

Claim dismissed.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By
`Wsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of January, 1977.