Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTTfi~-'TV'I' BOARD Award No. 7Y+71
 SECOT~D DIVISION Docket No. 7233-T
 2-BNI-MA-' 78

( International Association of Machinists
 ( and Aerospace Workers
 Parties to Dispute: (
 (
 ( Burlington Northern Inc.

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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

 The carrier ox carriers and the employe or emplayes involved in this dispute axe 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.

The Organization claims work of refinishing center plates attached to freight cars with a device known as the Fxeightmastex Center Platen Ttefinisher, at the Carrier's facility at Laurel, Montana. It bases its claim on the
 p1
 mvisions of Rules 27 (a) and 51.


Foam 1 Award No. 7+71
 Page 2 Docket No. 7233-T
 2-BNI-MA-' 78
 Rule 51 reads as follows:

As a preliminary finding, the Board does not agree that Rule 51 makes specific reference to the work involved. Special note must be taken that the duties listed at the beginning of the rule refer to locomotives and engines, etc. -- but are notably devoid of specific reference to freight cars.

 The Carrier points out that an identical dispute arose concerning the same equipment at its St. Cloud facility and, upon declination by the Carrier, was abandoned. Similarly, another dispute was initiated at the Carrier's Havelock facility. When the Carrier proposed that the matter go forward under Rule 93 (discussed below), the dispute was not progressed farther.

 The Organization claims that the disputes at St. Cloud and Havelock were not advanced because use of the equipment was abandoned, although this is not indicated in the quoted correspondence.

 Nevertheless, the results of the St. Cloud and Havelock disputes lend logic and reasonableness to the assignment of use of the Freightmastex equipment to Carmen (the third party at interest here) at Laurel, as it had done at St. Cloud and Havelock. (The Carrier, of course, offers other reasons for its assignment of the work to Carmen as well.)
 Form 1 Award No. 7+71
 Page 3 Docket No. 7233-T
 2-BNI-MA-'78
 Rule 93 reads as follows:



Applying the first paragraph of Rule 93, it is noted that the Organization corresponded with the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen on the dispute, and the Carmen declined to offer clearance to the Machinists, but instead defended their right to the work. No agreement between the two crafts has been reached.

 Applying the second paragraph of Rule 93 -- referring to "new methods or new processes", the Carrier argues that the Organization should go forward on these terms, in lieu of seeking a decision from this Board. The Organization points out that this portion of Rule 93 contemplates a conference between the Carrier and affected crafts prior to assignment of the work, whereas the Carrier went forward at Laurel without such preliminary conference. But, as noted above, this was a reasonable action by the Carrier in view of the precedent at St. Cloud and Havelock.

 The Board finds that the Organization has not shown that the work involved unequivocally belongs to Machinists under its Classification of Work Rule, nor has it obtained its remedy through Rule 93. Resolution of the dispmte'by the Board at this point is therefore inappropriate.
 F orm 1
 Page 4

 Claim denied and dismissed.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 7+71
 Docket No. 7233-T
 2-BNI-MA-'78

 A W A R D

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


BY ~i~ -?~ c~

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of February, 1978.

The facts of record, applicable agreement provisions, and proper precedent Awards of this Division, all portray the defects in this erroneous award.
 Since the reasons expressed in the Labor Members Dissent to Award No. 7218 are also applicable to this er=oneous decision, that Dissent by reference and attachment is adopted herein.
 Further in this instant case even the Carrier acknowledged that the work involved was not covered by the Third Party's class of work Rule. Such as portrayed in their submission in pertinent part:

The majority's holding that the provisions of Rule 93, governing work jurisdiction disputes, had not been utilized to obtain our remedy, is.just as erroneous as the other findings. This neutral completely, and conveniently, overlooks the fact that the Carrier is also bound by the restraints of the Rule. Both in continuing existing practices and a conference prior to assigning work involving new methods or new processes. Rather than face up to holding the Carrier responsible these findings give comfort and encouragement to the industry in perpetuating these deliberate industry triggered disputes
 wherein they are gradually having their way in a desire for bastardization of all the craft rules.

 Holding the Carrier also to the restraints of Rule 93 would have continued proven existing practices that whenever this work item had previously been machined it was performed by a machinist and when not machined the repairs were accomplished by the Third Party. The ridiculous holding that isolated temporary practices at two points established any precedent is certainly stretching the imagination. There was absolutely no need for this organization to pursue claims filed in those instances, since the practice was immediately discontinued there. This was surely an admission by the Carrier of their misassignment.
 Award No. 7471 is erroneous and completely lacking in precedential stature.


                        - 2 - LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO

                        AWARD NO. 7471, DOCKET NO. 7233-T