Form 1
Fatties to DistDut;e:

 Pi. s rnzte d Claim of 'Ernployes:
Findings:
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTP.WIT B04I1j) Award No. 71+82
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7344-T
 2-BNI-ET^?- ~ 78

 The Second Division consisted of the regular me?..bers and in addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 System Fede=ration No. 7, Railyay Employes'
 Department, A. F. of L. - CI. 0.
 (Electrical Gdar::i.ers )

 ( Burli n ;ton Northern Inc.

 That -in violation of tile current working a`,reernent the Burli ngta?1 Northern Inc. arbitrarily assigned the operation of cranes at Norvhtoarn, Minnesota to employees other than Electrical forces. ClaSrt f91ea for is»_r (I+) 11ovrs cumqpensM.tioiz at r:~c rat..a rates, plus am additional a:3.00 =or V~ro working 6-ay start:i.n~; va-itls d.wcc, of SC,'ft:.:.".Je:r lj. 1975 and COrlt:i_YIWS.r?g until G.,Cl:I;:.sUed. Claiiu filed
 ,~ in r)elllf of Electricians D. a. King, L. C. ~ortr,riller, a. Ii. Rasmussen, cTr, and ii. C. Kohler, and to be E'Q11a127 Ci:'I7.Qt;C1 among than.

 That accordingly the Carrier be wdeved to compensate Claimants
 far four (4) hours plus the 2.dCt1'G10na.L 43.00 0 for . i 'acf1 working d2,-7
 startin_, with Sept ~~r~b er 15, 1.975 anal cant_tzuin:, until adjusted.

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the s~rhole retard and all the evidence, :Finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe cr employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the neaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

The Carrier has ~.n operation two 15-ton and one 35-ton traveling overhead cranes at its new diesel maintenance facility at iiorthtoirn Yard. The cranes are operated with :vushbatton pendant controls from floor level by employes ire a~vai~-~e-ty of crafts. The Organization claims that operation. of the cranes should be assigned ey:clusive1y to Electricians at Northtown.

 The evidence presented by the Organization and the Rules to which it refers do not merit such a finding.
 Foam 1 Page 2

 Award iTo. 702
 Docket No. 7341+-T
 2-Dry-Ew- t 78

 The Organization relies on its Classification of Work Rule, which is Rule 76. The description of duties under Rule 76 does not specifically identify the operation of cranes. The Pule does indeed include, in separate paraqr'aphs, reference to "operators" o=`' 40-tan capacity ox over, and electric cranes under 40-ton capacity. Where pertinent, such xef'exence refers to regularly assigned crane operators. in the Carrier's facility, n0 such regular positions in regard t0 the three cranes in question hove been listed or .fi:!l_ed. Rather, the cranes are operated as needed by the various crafts in connection with the specialized work.

 Nor ha.;, the Organization shown that :it operates such cranes on an exclusive basis throughout the Carrier's system. To the contrary, there
 evidence of operation of such cranes at .nry other locations by elnploLe-as other thr,.r, electricians. Tm

 fact that Electricians are ^..SS7.gneJ_ at a'":C locations _"ox' the a:pevation au: certain t"-~,es of C4~ does not s,~ff ice
 1Y_C's fox a claim for e.x.c:Lu:;ive operation of -i;iic cranes at 9 ssue here.

 In addition to and apart :Lr^a;l the %t:70Vc', the 'v~aY'iC 01': OT7E.';C'~;lmng the cranes at Worth'tow:x is a, non, operation. -o precedent at -;orthtoTn2 fs available to guide the par-tics involved. The position of the international Association oz : ai:_s,: and Aerorr. _ _orers, as a third party at interest, is well taken 7_n arguing Ant ;,__.: 0't"g?'YKat1.0I1 rust first seeir,

 a ramedy through Rule 93, Mich states in part:

 "Any controversy as to craft jurisdiction arising between
 two Or more of the organizations parties to this agreement
 shall first be settled by the contesting orGaninations, and
 existing ^,~.all be cont- , 1 ~,11 be continued without penalty ~iexisting p
 s and Whvtl tile Carrier has been properly notified and had
 reaEonalle opportunity to reach an understanding with the
 organization involved ...

No evidence of recourse to Rule 03 was presented, so that on this ground the claim is z_mpropaxl~r before the Board.

 A W A R D

 Clain, denied. and dismissed.

 Attest: Executive Secr'etar'y
 National Railroad 111,djustment. Board

 iTAT:LOTAL I',AILRGAD ADJUSTI~.1W IT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 by

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of T'ebr?xf.wv,r, 178.