Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT' BOARD Award No. 7618
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7389-T
 2-r-P-SM-'78



Parties to Dispute:

Dis te: Claim of rmployes:













Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and .a11 the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this disrwate are 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.

Early in 1975, because of a decline :in traffic, Carrier reduced its forces at its Sedalia, Mo. freight car repair facility, including the furlough of all Sheet Metal T~Toxkers there employed. One machinist was retained for necessary maintenance work within the Machinists' jurisdiction. The machinist was also assigned the cleaning of water ptarp strainers--work. done by the sheet metal -vwxkers ,prior to their furlough-- -and, on a few limited occasions during the 10 xronths when all the sheet metal workers were furloughed, pexforrzed other sheet metal workers' work.
 Foam 1 Award No . 7618
 Page 2 Docket No. 7389-T
 2-bzP-SM-' 78

 Petitioner filed the above-described claim (and similar ones in companion cases not here involved) on the grounds that the work described in the statement of claim belongs to the sheet metal workers' craft under their Classification of Work. Rule (Rule 97); that a member of the Sheet Metal Workers should have been retained to do the work in question ox to have been recalled to work fox the assignment; that its members have been doing pipe work since the Power House eras built and were always assigned this work by the Shop Superintendent before the force reduction; and that the Carrier failed to respond to the Organization's request fox a time check on the amount of time spent on the disputed work.

 Carrier's position is that because of the decline in the need fox freight car repairs, there was insufficient work of the type described in the claim to justify employing a sheet metal worker.

 The Machinists' Organization, after due notice, has filed a submission in this case, supporting Carrier's work assignment.

 Carrier cites Rule 26(b), as amended by the National Agreement of September 25, 19611, , (in part):

Carrier contends that this Rule permits it to assign the work in dispute to any o= the crafts remaining on the property capable of performing the work, and that it is under no obligation nor requirement to revert to the situation prior to the furlough of the Sheet Metal VToxkexs.

 The Idle envisions the possibility that there may ox may not be sufficient work to employ a mechanic of a particular craft. To determine whether the wox't at issue has diminished substantially ox is performed only intermittently, the parties, under the Rule, are to conduct a joint check of the facilities.

 As noted above, Rule 26(b) provides for a joint check of the facts. Although the record indicates -that the OrCa.nization did request such a check, no check was in fact made, for reasons not indicated in the record.
 Foam 1 Award No. 7618
 page 3 Docket No. 738-T
 2-2·P-STS-' 78

 Carrier states that it was necessary to retain a machinist during the fux·lough period fox necessary maintenance work reserved to the machinists` craft-, but acknowledged that the maintenance work performed by the machinist, in addition to that reserved to his craft, also included certain work performed by sheet metal workers prior to the furlough.

 Carrier's Shop Superintendent, in declining the claim, (Carrier's Exhibit F-1) stated that Machinists have always lubricated steam generators and air compressors and. related work, such as cleaning iratex strainers, did not require more than one hour a day.

 Carrier also stated that once during the 10-month period when all sheet metal workers were furloughed, the work of changing a water pump was done by a machinist, a task which required only two hours' work. On another occasion, the m--chinist washed the steam generator coals on one generator, requiring two to four hours' work, but not requiring constant/ attendance.

 Carrier adds that the only power house work performed by the machinist on a daily basis which the sheet instal workers had formerly performed u~,s the washing of steam generator water pump strainers and such tasks did not require over one hour's work. Carrier indicates that Petitioner zoos so notified in June 175 and that Petitioner has not denied the Carrier's time estimates.

 Employee's Exhibit J. a letter from the Sheet Metal Workers' General Chairman to Carrier's Director of Labor Re7,a.tions wppears to acknowledge that the Machinist spent 1 ess than a half-day on the disputed work. The washing of generators, accox·ding to Petitioner's o;an statement, took place once a month and required about eight (8) hours work on each occasion, of -rhich four (I+) did not require the employee to be in attendance.

 The record does not disclose any examples ox instances cited by Petitioner of the machinist "renewing pipes, unstopping pipes and fixing oil and grater leads on steam generators," as alleged in the Statement of Claim.

 The record also includes a cla-.'ul: that Carrier assigned Carmen to assemble railroad crossing signs in the Sign Shop which had. 'been previously assigned to Sheet Metal Workers. Thin claim was not included in the original Statement of Clain, and, in accordance with well-established authority, lies outside our jurisdiction.

 Carrier also relies on the principle of stare decisi_s, citing prior Az~rards on this railroad, under the same agreement but involving a different Organization, under circumstances similar to those present in the case before us. (Second Division Award No. 2_607 (Shake) and 32,8 (Ferguson)). in these prior cases, P·'achi.ni.sts were furloughed, the number of Carmen was increased, and the remaining work a.ss:iined to Carmen. The Board, in both these cases found that the volume of machinists' work had declined
 Form 1
 Page 4

 Award No. 7618
 Docket No. 7389-T
 2-MP-SvI-' 78

 markedly, such as to warrant furloughing machinists, and, accordingly, denied the Machinists' claim on the ground that there was not sU_fficient work to occupy a machinist.

 We agree with the conclusions in the above-cited cases 5_n their application to the instant case.

 The burden is on the organization to demonstrate that Carrier's action was unwarranted. This the Organization has failed to do.

 The Organization did not present evidence to show that there was sufficient work to keep a sheet metal worker employed. A joint check, though requested, was not made, as provided in Rule 26(b). We are troubled by the fact that the joint check vas not made. Such a check, had it been performed, would have gone a long way to xesalvin'- the critical issue of whether there was "sufficient work to justify a mechanic of each craft"; specifically, the amount of time spent by the machinist on work claimed by the Sheet Metal V?oxkexs during the period Sheet Metal Workers were on furlough status. But a review of the record, based on evidence supplied either by the Sheet Metal workers or by the Carrier (in the latter case not denied by the Organization), supports a finding that such i-rork by the retained machinist i~ras insufficient on a daily basis, or was too sporadic as to justify employing a full. 'time sheet metal worker.

 Nor has the Organization d_emonstxaced that Rule 26(b), as amended by, the National. Agreement of September 25, 1964, precluded Carrier from using a machinist to perform, the 1Lm:ited ox infrequent work heretofore performed by a :;beet metal worker, after the fluxlcugh of all sheet metal workers because of a decline in business.

 The Board finds, therefore, that the claim fails because the Organization did not prove there was enough work to keep claimant on the job. The procedure specified :in Rule 26(b ), governing disputes over the assignment of work was not followed.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary

 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJITSTIvE>>T BOARD

By Order of Second Division


;ose:narie :Brusch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of July, 1978.