Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTI-ENT BOARD Award No. 8111
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7968
 2-MP-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Emloyes:




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.

This Board takes judicial notice of the factual similarities between this dispute and Second Division Awards 4601, 7311, 7312 and 8051.

 In Award 731'1., involving the same parties, we held that, "The langguage of the agreement is clear. The work in question has been contracted to the carman. Foreman are entitled to perform that work at points where no mechanic is. e2rployed. We do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of 'points' includes the entire system of the carrier. The carrier's interpretation of the rule would not vest carmen's work in the carmen unless it was performed at a location where mechanics are employed. To read the rule as granting working foreman the right to do carmen's work over the
 Form 1 Award No. 811.
 Page 2 Docket No. 7968
 2-MP-CM-'79

 systF-!n leads to a patently absurd result. The carrier has alleged that the
 past rr~.ritice in existence on the property substantiates its position. We
 - do noj _ ''.--3 that the carrier has proved a past practice such as would
 susta-~,. at allegation."

 In i~. more recent Award involving analogous conditions, we held that a "point is a specific geographical location where a foreman is employed and not over the line of road." In the instant dispute, the foreman was employed at Wichita, Kansas, not 'ouncil Grove.

 The pivotal question that naturally arises in this case, is whether or not a well defined past practice existed on this property. Unlike Second Division Award 7311, wherein we recognized that claimant conceded that foremen "performed in similar circtunstances", the employe organization herein vehemently and consistently challenged this assertion. Accordingly, after carefully revieT~rLng the doc,mientary evidence addaced by carrier to verify the existence of a past practice, we mst conclude that i t falls short of proving that a system wide practice existed. The affirmations provided by carrier pertain to four (li) out of the eleven (11) states carrier operates in and is not indicative of a system wide practice.

 In Second Division Award 6438, we stated, in pertinent part, that "with respect to the past practice arg=ent raised 'by the carrier, it is well established that a practice which is consistent, of long standing, is mutually acceptable, and is not contrary to the Agreement should govern. In this case the practice is not consistently followed throughout the carrier's operations."

 We believe this principle is directly applicable to the fact specifics herein. Claimant should have been called. to perform the contested work and we will. sustain the claim at the straight time rate.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 ~-Ipsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

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