Form 1 NATIOidAZ RAILROAD ADJUSTM= BOARD Award No. 8094
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7862
 2-MP-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


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 en oloye 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.

Claimant was a Carman assigned to Carrier's Settegast Train Yard in Houston, Texas. On April 8, 1977, it being a holiday, Good Friday, Claimant's position was blanked. On that day, April 8th, a Truck Driver employed by the Missouri Pacific Trucking Cori nary installed plates on two cars. That individual indicated in his staterent that the work would appear on his tire sheet. The piggy back track eras located adjacent to the train yard and Claimant was regularly assigned to repair piggy back cars during his normal work week.

 Petitioner argues that the assignment of an employee not covered by the Carmen's Agreement to the work in question was a prima facie violation of Rule 117, the Classification of Work Rule, which provides, in pertinent part:
 Form 1 Award No. 8094
 Page 2 Docket No. 7802
 2-rT-Cr111-' 79
 "Carmen's work, including regular and helper apprentices,



It is urged that had the work occurred during the regular work week Claimant would have performed the necessary task and hence the work on the holiday should have been assigned to him. Petitioner states that work performed by " the craft on a regular basis cannot be removed from the craft on holidays.

 Carrier argues that the work in question, installing missing plates, may properly be required of truck drivers incidental to the performance of their duties. Further, it is stated that no repairs were made which were contracted to the Carmen's craft. In addition, Carrier arFves that the Claim is inflated since only two hours and fifteen minutes at most were consumed by the truck driver in performing the .,Tork in question. Carrier also points out that the work ca_Yne under the jurisdiction of the shipper and it had no record of the work in its mechanical department.

 With respect to the nature of the work, in our jud12r:;ent it was maintenance work covered by Rule 117 (see A~:*ard pro. 7621). Essential:l;%r, Carrier's argument boils do~em to the allegation that it dial not rave control of the work which was assigned t.,o the Tinzck Driver by the shippinco-,,-parry and hence the work was performed voluntarily by the shiP;)ar. The arg=:ent is not Persuasive because the identical work was regularly performed by Carrier personnel during the regular work week and C arrier xas a:raare that the type of recai r activity was required. Further!-ore, Carrier ecrild easily have established from the records of its subsidiary company whether or not the work was indeed performed by the driver. It also rust be emphasized that the record establishes the fact that the work in question eras perfoxwned on Carrier's pigg-Y-back ra::p, even though this aspect of the dispute is not determinative. The key is the fact that this was work covered by the Agreement and normally performed by Carmen during the regular work week.

 With res:;pect to the remedy, it :rust be noted that the work only took something less than 21 hours. Hence, rather than eight hours pay, a call (four hours) at pro rata rate for the holiday would appear to be more appropriate (Award 2273).

Claim sustained; Carman Soto will receive four hours pay at time and one half.
 Form 1 Award No. 8094
 Page 3 Docket No. 7862
 2-MP-CM-79
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJJSTP,~nIT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY .=.~t.s'!' .---'i

Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September, 1979.