Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIR4AD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award Pdo, 7983
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7886=C
 - 2-SISF-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.

The claim before the Board concerns "removing and installing of grease lines and air compressors piping" on two Industrial Brown Hoists, although the claim as originally expressed on the property is scmewhat though not significantly broader.

 The Sheet Metal Workers' classification of work rule (Rule 94) is not found to include such work with specificity, and no showing is made that the claimed work is exclusively performed by Sheet Metal Workers. More relevant, therefore, are provisions for incidental work.

 Paragraphs (b) through (d) of the Incidental Work Rule - Sheet Metal Workers (From Article V of a May 12, 1972 National Agreement) read as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 7988
 Page 2 Docket No. 7886-r
 2-sLSF-sM-'79





In arguing in reference to the Incidental Work Rule, the organization places particular emphasis on Paragraph (d), which, where applicable, negates the -permissive use of "incidental work" definition for the Carrier. In the instance of Gar No. 99022, applying whichever claim is made by the Organization, the Board finds Paragraph (d) inapplicable in that no repairs were made. As to Car No. 99025, no showing is made that the change of gavel gears itself was improperly performed by Machinists, and the work claimed by the organization is clearly incidental to such work, both as to its nature and the time required to perform it.

 On this basis, the Board finds no merit in the claim itself. Thus, it is unnecessary for the Board to examine the question of whether C. L. Atwood is a proper claimant, considering his place of assignment, as well as the presence within the work area of another Sheet Metal Workers.

 The third party involved, the international Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, was notified of the dispute and indicated that it felt no repay on its part to be necessary.

    Claim denied.

    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary

        ational Railroad Adjustment Boa

                - - E, ~ ~' r

By
 '~ ~ Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of June, 1979·
    LABOR MEMBERS' DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 7988 DOCKET NO. 7885-T


The Neutral has exceeded his statutory authority by deciding this case on the basis of the Carrier's reference to the Incidental Work Rule.
 Any dispute arising under the framework of the Play l?., 1972 Agreement between the Sheet Zr;etal Workers and the Carrioxs signatory to the Agreement, axe to be settled by the earner ccntwined in the June 5, 1972 Letter Agreerent, and in zoo other way.
 The June 5, 1972 letter is in conformity with paragrapia (h) of the lv'.ay 12, 19i2 Agr~.~ement, and the Referee slloulcl have been aware of it.
 The Re`oree was obligated to ecide the case safely on t1- basis of Rule 94, and no other.
 By permitting the Carrier to infect the Incidental v;ork Rule, and ignoring the violation of the time limits contained ~n Iho same rule, the Majority is in serious error, and the claim should have been allowed as presented.

      _ ,


                            tI . %Cullen

                            L ~:~or i somber