C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-07861.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJl1S'yfi'IEiVT BOARD Award No. 7861
. SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7633-T
2-MP-MA-' 79

The Second Division consisted or" the regular members and in addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists and

( Aerospace `,porkers

Parties to Dispute-: (

( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling

Agreement, particularly Rules 26(a) and 52(a), when they

arbitrarily assigned Caxnen to remove and disassemble 20 control

valves on a test rack panel.

2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered

to compensate Machinist N. T. Berry in the amount of four

(4)

hours pay at a Machinist's punitive rate of pay for being denied

the rigrt to perfox:r the above-mentioned work.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record arid 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

In this case the Organization alleges that Ehaployees other than Machinists p,erform,<t:d Twrork reserved to the Machinists' Craft under Rules 26(a) and 52(s,) of the controlling Agreement. The work in question involves removal and. disassembly of control valves on an air brake test rack. On March 2, 1976 at Carrier's North Little Rock, Arkansas mechanical facility, a Carr::azi t,-as assigned to remove and disassemble 20 control valves on the test rac::'s panel. Specifically,, the Carman disconnected handles and cover plates, removed. ruober diaphragms, disconnected the compressed air source, and took the rack off the wall. Claimant asserts that this assignment- by Carrier resulted in the Cannan performing Machinists' work for approxiinatel"Y one (1) dour.
Form 1 Award No. 7861 Page 2 Docket No. 7633-T 2-MP-MA-179 Carrier argues that Rule 26(a) which restricts mechanics' work to mechanics or apprentices does not restrict work to Machinists, but rather to those crafts comprising mechanics, and Carmen are included in that category. Rule 52(a) is the Machinists' classification of work rule. Our review of the cited contract provisions persuades us that the work in - question is not expressly reserved to Machinists by clear and unambiguous language. When a claim such as this is presented, the-burden of proof is upon the petitioning Organization to show that the work in question is contractually reserved to employees of that Organization; or that by system-wide custom, practice, and tradition such work has been performed exclusively by that Organization. In the case before us, this burden has not been met. Even Claimant Berry's letter asserts only that Machinists have done the work at issue, not that it has been work assigned exclusively to Machinists. Carrier's assertions remain unrefuted that Carmen have historically performed the work in question without incident. Upon careful consideration of the record before us and the Agreement language we have no alternative but to deny the present claim. See Third Division Award 22244.

A W A R D

Claim denied. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant Dated~,~at Chicago, Illinois., this 7th day of March, lg7g.