Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSIIIENT BOARD Award No. 81
 SLCOL4D DIVI.S 1011 Docket No. 7662-T
 2-Hi3PT-E'a`r-' T>
 The Second Divisioa cor-listed of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Jams F. Scearce when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical. Workers)

                  ( Houston Belt and Termin<0. Rail-,gay Company


Disnute~: Claim of Fmnloves

      1. That the Houston Belt and Ter,-,anal Rail pray Comany violated P".1les

          22(a) arid (b), 23 and 100 of the September 1, 1~-° y9 control line

          agreement v.~z=en thoy as s:«:ned Carman D. K. Clifton, B. D. Flc:ex,:, 0. T,. Little, C . E. ~c:? ~'f~= e·, ....i , Don Seary ud S . III . Trulock to performing electricians' work, i.e., to irzstalling electrical service (source), service box and wiring, from the a:!.tern^ for o n Carrier's tool car (,~171_1) for the air conditioner :gin Cwaricr's bung car (''t'X3 595) , thus, dear ivin7 Flec -uric 4. C . R. V!ilsoli, T. J. Atkin',cn, E. L. Nunn and Roy Paul of their contractual


                                ra

          rights to sa:M vTork at iioustony i~2:5? ,


          2. That accordinc;ly, Carrier re ordered to compensate ClaimarJ,s listed below eigh-; hours (8') at the straight tii a rate r;.s "all oars


            June 24, 1976 - C. R. `dilson, `_. J. Atkinson and E. L. Nunn;


                      June 25, 1976 - Roy Paul, E. L. Nunn, C. R. Wilson and T . J. Atkinson;


            June 28, 1976 - C. R. I.Vilson and T. J. Atkinson-,

            June 29, lc ,)-16 - C. R. o'Jilson, T. J. Atkinson and E. L. Nunn.


          3. In addition to the money amounts claimed herein, the Carrier ;hall pay Claimm.-us an additional amount of r> ) per a.nnutn compounded annually on the anniversary date of the claim.


Find j ngs
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the erml oye or e-mloyes involved in this dispute are reSoec tiv?ly carrier and mhploye within the mean:Ing of the Railway Labor Act as m)-proved auzie 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Ad j;:,,3- tent Board has juriodiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute vraived right of pope-.ralice at hearing theraon.
 The International- Association of Yachinists and Aerospace Wor:,,ers wn.s
 given the opportunity to participate in this dispute -:,s a.n interested third party.
 Form 1 Award No. 8136
 Page 2 Docket No. ?662-T
 2-HB&T-FfV-' i9

 There appears to be no particular dispute that, on certain dates in June of 19'76, the Carrier directed carmen to perform certain work redui.red to provide electrical powar to the air coedition.ng system in a new "bunk"(or "dormitory") car. To do so, it eras necessary to install wiring and other electrical devices so as to permit connection from an electrical service box in the "tool car" to an alternator in the bunk or dormitory car. According to the Carrier, such irst.llation was a^comolis'ned in a manner so as to permit separation of such cars, i f necessary, when on taa line of road or a', a :heck site. The Organization (herein) objects, contend-n-, that such work was electricians and that the claiman ,,s were availabl a to perform such 'work; it relies upon Rules 23 and 100, inter alia, to support such claim:

                      RULE 23


                  ASSIGARENT OF G,ORK


    (a) None but mechanics or apprentices regt.ilarly employed as such shall do machanic3' .,.,ork as par special rules of each craft, except foremen at points where no mechanics are employed.


    (b) This rule does not prohibit foremen in the exercise of their duties to perform .,rork.


                      RUL 100


                CLASS IFICATIO`I OF WORK - ELECTRICAL

                '~'r OR.'~RS


    Electricians' work shall consist of maintaining, reoairing, rebuildirg, inspectinand installing all electric :°ririrg of :venerators, installing, switchboards, meters, motors and controls, rheostats and control-s, static and rotary transformers, motor generators, electric headl iC;hts and head light generators, electric welding mach-nes, staraf~e bat-cries, axle ii;ht equipment and electrIC ligh V:in- fixtilre3 ; '':,'171 :_n:~ armatures, i-i-31^1=: , T .·~ nets, coils, rotors, transformers and starting co=ensators; wiring at shops and all conduit cork in connection therewith; vririn<; steam and electric tractors and passenger train and motor cars, and electric tractors and trucks; and all o ther work generally recognized as electricians :-cork.


The Carrier contends that work on such eauipmnxit i s not exclusively that of electricians where such equipment is on line o_° road or on the "vrrecker track," as was the case here, it relies upon Rule 50 - Claissification of ':York - Machinists, Item (b) in this regard:

                      RULE 50


              CLASSIFICATION OF 't°,'ORK - MkCHINISTS

Form l Award No. 8136
 Page 3 Docket No. 7662-T
 2-HB&T-EW-' 79

        ...


        (b) This rule shall not be construed to prevent engineers, firemen,

        cranemen, operators of steam shovels, ditchers, clam shells, wrecking

        outfits, pile drivers and other similar equipment from making any

        repairs to such equipment as they are qualified to perform, on line

        - of road or wrecker track.


The Carrier also asserts that not all of the claimants are classified to perform work on rolling stock and, thus, the Claim is flawed; it also asserts that no work occurred on June 29, 1976 and thus the Claim is additionally erroneous.

 It is clear that the work performed was electrical in nature and was new. It is not apparent that it was only intended for use when the equipment was on the line of road but, rather, ar)poars to have been intended to serve both the purpose of affording air conditioning while the equipment was in use on the wrecker track as we'll as malting its air conditioning system roadvrort1ly.

 The Carrier's use of Rule 50 is strained in its intent to cover such work here: by its caption, this Rule clearly applies to the TJechinist classification. It is impOrtant to note that no such provision, as set out in Rule 50 (b) is similarly a part of the electrician's classification of wore (Rule 100).

 In its submission, the Carrier asserts that June 29, 1976 was not a day worked, yet the record indicates it never raised this defense while the dispute was on the property By the same submission, it also contends that two of the Claimants were "maintenance electricians" and, as such, not properly classified to perform such work. This aspect of the Claim also appears to have first been raised 1.n its ex pane submission. If it can be demonstrated that no such work ensued on June 29, 1976, then this-portion of the Claim is invalid since the Claimants cannot lay claim to something that did not exist. In upholding the Claim, we find no merit to the Carrier's assertion. of the lack of validity of the Claim by Claimants herein in the maintenance electrician classification, because the Carrier failed to demonstrate why maintenance electricians could not perform such work, as assigned, if the eyaij;ment was sited on the wrecker track and work performed there. The claim will be sustained as stipulated above, except for Item No. 3, on which no agreement support has been cited.

                      A W A R D


    Claims are affirmed as set forth in the Findings.


    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTT,1ENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


        osernarie 3

            rasch - .~i~:ninzstrative ~ssist;ar


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of October, 1979.