Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7270
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7120-T
2-SCL-SM-'77





Parties to Dispute:




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.



The work involved in this dispute involves repairs to water stands at the Carrier's Florence, South Carolina, passenger station. The Sheet Metal Workers claim that their Classification of Work Rule (Rule 85) covers the work, as follows:


Form 1 Award No. 7270
Page 2 Docket No. 7120-T
2-SCL-SM-'77

On the other hand, the third party respondent claims that its Maintenance of Way agreement covers this tirpe of work in its reference to Water Supply Mechanics, Water Supply Helpers, and Water Service Repairmen in various points within its Rules. The =Facilities which were being repaired were originally built by Maintenance of Way employes.

While the Organization has shown that the type of work (i.e., pipe work) is within its Classification of Work Rules, it has not shown that such work is reserved exclusively to the Sheet Metal Workers' craft. The evidence presented as to which group of employes have worked in the past on the water stands at Florence, Sout'z Carolina, is somewhat contradictory.

The matter cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the respective agreements of the Sheet Metal Workers and the Maintenance of Way employes with the Carrier, since both agreements can be read to encompass this type of work. In view of this, it -would then be necessary for the Sheet Metal Workers to show that this is work normally and customarily performed by its craft, and not by others. This the evidence fails to support clearly.

This is a matter fox which the procedure for solution of jurisdictional disputes is applicable. The Organization, however, states that the jurisdictional dispute Agreement of December 20, 1967, to which it is a signatory, does not include the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. The Board finds that this does not make it inappropriate in this instance. The Agreement of December 20, 1967, reads in part:





On May 23, 1968, the Maintenance of Way Employes signed a similar Agreement, calling for resolution by "the different Organizations involved", of such jurisdictional matter;.

The Board thus finds that; the present dispute is subject to the terms of the jurisdictional dispute procedure. Further, the Board does not find that the Carrier "changed" its practice in reference to the repairing of water stands.

Since it cannot demonstrate exclusive jurisdiction either by its
Classification of Work rule or by unquestioned past practice, it is
Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 7270
Docket No. 7120-T
2-SCZ-SM-'77

incumbent on the organization to seek relief through the Agreement of December 20, 1967. Since this has not been attempted, the matter is improperly before this Board.

A W A R D

Claim dismissed.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Ad.justment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


,emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of April, 1977.