Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTPENT BOARD Award No. 7832
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7705-T
 2 -MP- SM- 79



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, 193+.

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

In this case, Caboose 13414 was on the spot repair track at North Little Rock, Ark. A stainless steel wash basin in the cab needed repair. Carmen assigned to the spot track disconnected the piping to the wash basin and unbolted the basin from the wa11o The basin was then sent to the sheet metal shop at the Pike Avenue facility for repairs-by sheet metal workers. After the repairs were completed, the basin was returned to the spot repair track, some tzro miles from the Pike Avenue facility, and reapplied to the caboose by taxmen assigned to the spot repair track.

 Petitioner claims the right to the piping disconnecting, arid reconnecting involved; Carrier and Carmen (interested third .party) maintain such work by Carmen is of long standing.
 Form 1 Award No. 7832
 Page 2 Docket No. 7705-T
 2-MP-SM-'79

 Petitioner cited Rule 97, Sheet Metal Workers' Classification of Work, which provides, in part:





Petitioner also relies on a 1920 interpretation of the Rules of the National Agreement between the United States Railroad Administratirn and the Railway Employees' DepaYtment of the American Federation of Labor, which reads in part:

Petitioner also submitted a letter dated August 23, 1950 from the then General Chairman of the Carmen's Organization to a, taxman local chairman which states that:

This letter, Petitioner alleges, indicates recognition by the Carmen's organization that the work at issue is Sheet P~"etal Workers' exclusively and that the Sheet Metal Workers' jurisdiction over such work is not limited to shop work.

 Petitioner also contends that the North Little Rock facility constitutes a single "point", with all Sheet Metal Tx;arkexs under a single seniority roster, and that, therefore, Sheet Metal Workers should have been called to perform the works
 Form l Award No. 7832
 Page 3 Docket No. 7705-T
 2-MP-SM-'79

 Carrier's position is that Rule 97 refers to caboose work performed in a shop and not to the repair track where only ca.rmen are assigned. It therefore complies with Rule 26(b) in that Carmen did the disconnecting and reconnecting on the caboose at the spot repair track, whereas -the Sheet Metal Workers repaired the wash basin in the shop. Carrier insists that spot repair tracks are not, and never have been considered shops.

 Carrier cites several Awards on the property which hold that there can be separate points in the application of Rule 26(b) in a terminal. It adds that at North Tittle Rock, this Board has held that, in the application of Rule 26(b), facilities adjacent to the hturp yard axe separate points from facilities in the Locomotive Department. in short, it concludes, two separate facilities can be separate ,points under Rule 26(b) even though they may be relatively close together.

 The 1920 interpretation cited by the Petitioner, according to the Carrier is inapplicable for several reasons, including the fact that the 1920 National Agreement terminated with the end of government control in 1]21 and is no longer part of any agreement between the Carrier and either the Sheet Metal U,orkers of Ca,tmen.

 The third pay in interest, the Carmen's Organizations filed a statement rebutting Petitioner's claims and ,pointing out that the Carmen's General Chairman's 1950 letter makes no reference to work on cabooses.

 A close examination of Rule 97 (Classification of Work Rule) reveals that it does not specifically set out the work performed in this case. Indeed, the Rule specifically limits sheet metal workers pipe fitting on cabooses to work "when done in shop". In the case before us, the work on the caboose was done on the spot repair track, at some distance fro:: the shop. No probative evidence has been submitted by Petitioner that Sheet iaetal Workers have customarily, historically and traditionally performed this work exclusively on a system-wide basis, especially at .points removed from the shop, such asp in the case before use at a spot repair track.

 Previous Awards of this Board, including some covering the same parties., have considered the issue as to whether various work locations within a facility collectively constitute a single "point" or axe to be considered separate "points" in the application of Rule 26(b), Under circumstances similar to those involved here, including the fact that there was insufficient work at a particular location ox "point" to merit the full time employment of members of a particular craft at that location, the Board has ruled that such locations are to be considered separate "points" in the application of Rule 26. Award No. 5613 of this Board has described "point" as a particular place having a definite position or situs. Prior awards of this Division have held that the burden is upon the petitioner to establish through competent evidence that a Carrier's entire operation within a metropolitan area constitutes a separate "point" even though all ,positions therein are filled from a single seniority roster.
 Form 1 Page 4

 Award. No. 732
 Docket No. 7705-f
 2-MP-SM- T 79

 Petitioner has offered no probative evidence concerning prior practice under similar circumstances and the applicable Agreement contains no definition of the team "Point".

 Concerning the 1950 letter by the Carmen's General Chairman to a Local Chairman, submitted by Petitioner, the record yields no infoxrlat:ion as to the type of work involved, where it was performed, ox any other information which might be helpful in our determination of the instant ca

 Based on the foregoing and prior A-yards of this Board, there is no basis fox the claim and it w3.11 be denied.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMGTTT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


.~"` Rosemarie t3x~asch - Adz~:inistxati.ve Assistant

 Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of February, 1]79.

 se.

      We feel that the author of this Award has committed grevious error in his findings for the following reasons:

      The work involved carmen disconnecting piping, removing and applying wash basin, and connecting piping to the basin made of 18 gauge stainless steel on Caboose No. 13414, at North Little Rock, Arkansas, on August 26, 1975, and this is work spelled out in the Sheet Metal Workers' Rule 97, to wit:


_- "Sheet Metal Workers----work shall consist of
              tinning, coppersmithing, and pipefitting in shops,

              on passenger coaches, cabooses and Commissary cars

              ----and engines of all kinds;---- The bending, fitting,

              cutting, threading, brazing connecting and disconnecting

              of air, water, gas, oil and steam pipes----and all other

              work generally recognized as Sheet Metal workers' work."

      and a review of the Award will show that the author went far afield in ignoring the provisions of Rule 97 and relying on Rule 26(b) which reads:


              "(b) At points where there is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic of each craft, the mechanic or mechanics employed at such points will, so far as they are capable of doing so, perform the work of any raft that it may be necessary to have performed."

      The facilities cohere this work was performed are within the bounds of the Greater North Little Rock Terminal and is not a separate or outlying point where no Sheet Metal Workers are employed. At the time of the incident Sheet Metal Workers were working in close proximity to the spot rip track on the service track approximately 100 yards from where carmen performed this work.

      The author of this Award goes on to say:


          "A close examination of Rule 97 (Classification of aor?t Rule) reveals that it does not specifically set out the work performed in this case."

Apparently the author of this Award was remiss in not reading the description of this work set out in both our Submission and Rebuttal Statements, i.e., that the work consisted of cutting, threading of nipples and pipe, and applying elbows and unions and connecting up to basin on the caboose - all of which is work clearly covered under the provisions of Rule 97.
 It is also noted the author bases his erroneous decision on Award No. 5613. This Award would have absolutely no bearing on the instant case and we quote from the Award:

          "In the instant case, breakdown of equipment occurred when no machinist was immediately available to make repairs which Carrier contends -,gas necessary to avoid delay. To alleviate the situation, the only mechanic on duty at Leeds, a caiman, was used to perform the necessary repair work, and Carrier's action under the circumstances cannot be described as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the applicable Agreement."

and a review of Award No. 5613 will show Leeds was in an industrial area on Carrier's lire from Kansas City, Missouri to Osawatomie, Kansas, and not within the bounds of the Kansas City yards. Also, no machinist was available to perform the :machinists' work and there was only a caiman employed at Leeds. In the instant case, the work was performed within the bounds of the Greater North Little Rock Terminal and sheet metal workers were on duty and available had they been called.

                          LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO

                          AWARD No. 7 83 2 , DOCKET NO.

                          - 2 -

Finally, the author, in referring to the 1950 letter of the Carmen's General Chairman to a Local Chairman, states:

          °'----the -record yields no information as to the type of work involved, where it was performed, or any other information which might be helpful in our determination of the instant case."

Again, it is obvious that the author of the Award was remiss in that the reading of the General Chairman's letter will show that the Local chairman was located at Jefferson City, Missouri, where the claim initiated, and his letter is crystal clear that the work performed involved the installation of water pipes on two (2) work cars, which is comparable to the work performed in the instant case, and in his letter to Carmen's Local Chairman made no qualification when he stated that such work belongs to Sheet Metal Workers under Rule 97.
 For the foregoing reasons, we vigorously dissent to this palpably erroneous Award.
                                    ,


                              M. J. Cullen,

                              Sheet Metal Workers' Int'1 Assn.

                              Labor Member - 2nd Division


- 3 - LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO
          AWARD NO. 7 83 2 , DOCKET NO.

                            7705