Form 1 E C L r V ONAZ RAILROAD ADJUSTI11ENT BOARD Award No. 7944






Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical workers)


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, 1934.

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

The issue in this case is whether machinists assign°d to do maintenance work on tractors, forklifts, mobile and highway equipment in Carrier's Kansas City Tractor Shot, perform a1.1_ the work necessary to repair such equipment or whether, as claimed by the Electricians' Organization, electrical work required on such equipment falls within the Electricians' jurisdiction and should be performed by members of the Electrician's craft.

 The basis of the claim is that a xnlachinist was assigned to perform electrician's work; specifically, "to install and hook up i,ri.ring to voltage regulator, ignition sfritch and amp :peter on M. P. Allis Chalmers Tractor." The Electricians' Organization n.amains that the tractor in question developed electrical trouble and that electricians "have men assigned in the tractor shop area who have in the past performed this type of work".
 Form 1 Award No. 791+
 Page 2 Docket No. 7608-T
 2-NM-Ew-' 79

 The organization argues that the Electrical Workers' Classification of Work Rule grants electricians the exclusive right to all electrical work and that even though the Rule does not specifically mention mobile and highway equipment, electrical work on such equipment is reserved to the electrician's craft by the phrase, "and a11, other work properly recognized as electrician's work".

 The Organization asserts that machinists are assigned to repair mobile equipment only for those repairs covered by the Machinists' Classification of Work Rule, which does not include electrical work. Petitioner adds that "when the need necessitates electrical repair of mobile equipment maintained at the Diesel. Shop an electrician is called, and, the assigned electrician in the Car Department performs the worn. in question as a part of his regular assignment". Furthermore, Petitioner states that the Tractor Shop is within the diesel facility with an "Electric Shop" adjacent to the Tractor Shop.

l,~ A machinist is regularly assigned to the Tractor Shop to make repairs to mobile and Hi-Way equipr=ent and he always performs electrical work on mobile equipment; "for r.:ary years that craft ha: performed whatever work is necessary while in the shop". Only machinists are assigned in the Tractor Shop,

 2, The assignment to do the work in dispute eras made, and the work performed, in accordance with past practice. (Carrier furnished statements by machinists Osborn and Argus that they "did all the electrical work on tractors, .forklifts and other mobile equipment maintained at Diesel Shop and Car Department.

4. The Electrical Workers' Classification of Work Rule does not include work on mobile equignent. The Rule was written many years before mobile equipment came into use on the railroads.

 5, No single craft has been assigned exclusive jurisdiction to work on mobile equipment; accordingly, past practice governs. The organization has neither shown that the Agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Electricians' Craft to work on mobile off-track equipment nor that, absent specific Agreement rules, the work accrues to electricians by virtue of past practice.

 6, The Organization has abandoned a similar claim after rejection by Carrier and has withdrawn a second claim filed with the Board. In connection with such claims, the parties' respective positions are identical to those advanced in the instant case.
 Form 1 Award No. 7944
 Page 3 Docket No. 760-T
 2-Ice'-Ew-' 79

 The Machinists, as an interested Third Party, supports Carrier's position, including furnishing statements by machinists that they performed the disputed work for many years and that no electricians performed such work.

 We are of the .opinion that the Organization has not met the burden of proof that the work in question should have been performed by an electrician. The Organization has not cited a single specific instance of electricians performing the work. To the contrary, the evidence supports a finding of a consistent and long continued past practice that the work complained of has been performed by members of the i-'achinists' Craft at this location. Both the Carrier and the Machinists' Organization have furnished documentation of such past practice.

 We find no reference in the Electrical Workers' Classification of Work Rule to the type of equipment here under consideration nor can we establish a grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Electricians' Craft to perform ti-le mock in dispute. This Board has often held that past practice is determinative of work assignments in cases where no clear-cut jurisdiction or exclusivity is found and where one craft does work that arguably could be performed by another craft under its Classification of Iv1erk ~sule. In the instant case, the Electrical Workers' Organization has failed to establish past practice in assigning the disputed work to its Aienipers.






                          By order of Secorx3. Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By _..mr_,,.l..r~__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 ~"s .arie Branch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May, 19790