Form 1 NATIONAL RAIL' MD ADJUSTI:MUT BOARD Award T?o. 8151
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8071
 2-1,TP-SM-' 79



Parties to Disvlte:

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 e,rploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 19'34.

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

On November 25, 1977, carrier assigned two machinists to repair a faulty regulator valve on the air comnre ssor in the Diesel Shop at its Kansas City facility. This assi gmnent required the disconnecting and connecting of pipes leading to the fauLl.ty valve. According to the record, the pipe work took a total of thirty minutes.

 The organization, thin1:in; that the job of disconnecting and connecting pipes belonged to sleet metal workers and not to machinists, fli.led a claim for call-in pay for taro men at the punitive rate of four (4) hours pay. The claim for call--in pay wns filed becxase the regillar sheet metal wor'~er assigned to the shift, duri rk-; vhi ch the challenL;ed vrork was done was off sick. The two men on v.,hose behalf the time clai:ns were filed were next out on tl-ae overtime list.
 Form 1 Award T,To. 8151
 Page 2 Docket No. 8071-T
 2-I°T-SM-' 79

 The claim was processed on the property, denied at each step of the grievance procedure, and is now before this Board.

 The carrier relies on Rule 52a of the June 1, 1960, consolidated agreement for its authority to assign the disconnecting and connecting work to the machinist assigned to repair the valve. This rule reads in pertinent part as '1 olllows :

The organization in claiming that the pipe work, is work that should have been assigned. to sheet metal workers, relies on Rule 97 of the consolidated agreement. This rule reads in pertinent part as follows:

It is undisputed that the disconnecting and connecting of pipes is a task that has been assigned, by at reezenyt, to both sheet ~::etal workers and to machinists. In situations -.n which two crafts are assigned, by contract, the same work, a dispute frequently arises over which craft should receive the work and under what conditions these a:ssignnents can be made.

 From a reading of the contract language in the June 1, 1.960 az;reement, and from the history of the railroad industry, it roust be ccnc luded that the parties intended that the disconnecting and connecting oz pipes i s sheet metal workers' wor_-, as a basic contract right. If the instant agreement were void of any r:ent:i.on of pipes being connected or disconnected by any other craft, there wcald be no question that all instances of pipe connecting or disconnecting ,,;ould be done by sheet metal workers. The parties to the 1060 agree:,_ent, ho7.,rever' despite the clear lan?uae of PIRvle 97, decided and agreed that under certain conditions machinists could disconne=ct and connect pipes. They wrote that in their a, gr eement as part of tale 5~a. The parties limited the right of the carrier to give this work to machinists to a~single situation: when it was necessary for a machinist to disconnect and connect pipes in order to get at a piece of machinery or equi~panent he was assigned to mane or repair.

 A careful reading of the language of Rule 97 and 52a clearly supports this analysis. Rule 97 reads "sheet metal ~-:orkers ... work shall consist of ... connecting and disconnecting . .. pipes". Absent any spec; w 1 a ree_ent, they must be assigned this work. Pule 52a reads "machinists _nav connect and disconnect .., pipes". Even under conditions presi~nt in t11is case, this language cannot be read by the machinists to mean that this work is by contract always theirs.
 Form 1 Award No. 815x_
 Page 3 Docket No. 8071-T
 2-P·'i:I'-SM-' 79

 If the carrier chooses in every instance to assign the connecting and disconnecting of pipes to sheet metal i-corkers, the machinists would not have a right under J2ule 52a to claim the i-rork. The language of Rule 52a gives discretion to the carrier to assign the pipe work as described in this case to either machin~_Sts or to sheet metal workers. That is clearly what was intended, by the language and this Board sees no evidence in the agreement to conclude otherwise.
the language of mule 07 and Rule 52a, did carrier violate the agreement by
 assigning the pipe work to the two machinists assigned to repair the valve?
 At the outset of this decision, it must be stated that the incidental Work
 Rule, Article V of -the T<'.:ay 12, 1972, ajr eement, does rest, apply to this
 dispute. The rule as spec-i f? ed i n Article V applies only to work pe r fox:nd
 on roLlf_ng stock. Clearly that is not the case here. Section i of Article
 V, however, does, have a bearing on tl case and :cast be con: idered, SectJ.on
 i clearly indicates that the incidental 1;ork : ;u.7.e :>upercedes the so-cal lea.
 Kite Tail ilzles in schedule agreements as they apply to canning repair on
 rolling- stock. This setlon cannot be read, ho;.Te<,rer, to h:~,s.~e superceded
 Kite Tail Agr e;~.nents as they apply to other than rolling stoc:1:.

 In this case, we are :1.nvolved with a Kite Tail Agreerent as it applies to dead work. The or.-ani ation does not arms.?e that rule 5'2a does not have any meaning-. It does argue, however, that it cannot be applied in the !:,inner the carrier has in this case.
a part of the oz' .~°-.ci a1 interpretation of the rules of the+- ,
 It clai-s that it -is a binding doci;:nent that giv^s meanin and intent to
 Rule 52a. It also states in the record that carrier knows ?5:5.1 well that it
 is applying R ulle 52a incorrectly. _In every si Milar situation .n the past,
 the union has filed a claim and the carrier has paid it. The 1920 letter
 states:



This Board has considered the impact of this letter in a previous case involving a similar set of facts. (~,;r~rd to. 51i-95). In that case, the Board ruled that no evidence eras presen?;ed 'that demonstrates that carrier had agreed by words or action to the interpretation or the status given tt=c letter by the organization.
 Form 1 Award I`o. 8151
 page 4 Docket No. 8071-T
 2-MP-sM-' 79

 We see no justification from the record before us in this case to modify that position. t? careful reading of the 1920 letter leaves a nturber of questicn:, unanswered. The letter makes no mention of the question asked of the Assistant Director. It makes no mention of the contract language involved or of the situation that existed at the time. It would be presumptuous for this Board to assua e, without further evidence, that the conditions in this case 'parallel the conditions that existed in the 1920 case. VC, woiLld also be presumptuous of this Board. to give the 1920 letter precedential weight without a further showinthan exists in the record before us that both carriers and unions adopted it as authority.

 The or#anizati on stated in the record, and the carrier did not refute it, that in similar situations on this property the union has al-,aays filed claims and the carrier has paid them. The record, however, is lac'.:ing in examples of this. In order for the parties to a collective barsai ping agreement to modii-~r the clear lingua a of that agreement by a past practice, it must be clean;; denolistrated that both ,Yar ties, by xutual areenen-1r;, intended that the ~a.t~.;;ua;;e would not :wean what it an-pears to say. This must be done by shoving that b-,r unequivocal actions over a lop; per4.oia. of time, both parties intended that the cone-race language not be enforced. This showing is not contained in the record be=ore this board.

 Absent a r-_utual intent to ignore or :~oci_`~=',r the lan7uage of. the contract, one party cannot raise the issue of past practice in vn ei_rort to :cd-ifcl°~a.r contract 1 arguage. it i s a universally accepted pr incipla of labor relations and of arbitral law that either side has the right to imr)l E~=ent the
 i4 clear language of -the agreement at any tirye if :, cannot be de?i:on.strated that both parties have over a long period of t-izne, intended that the ~an;aage not be ia:_~lclwsented. Hei then .party to a col I .ective bargaininagree:_rent is forever bound to centinue the lax: a~uninistration or enforceuient o= a contract clause that clearly states its rights.

 Carrier, in th_,_s instance, chose not to call in a sheet metal worker to disconnect and connect the pipes leading to the regulator valve that had to be repaired. It assig::ed the pine wore to t:;o machinists. This -vr~.s a special situation. The r egvlar sheet metal man was off sick. To call
in the sheet metal ;porkers who filed the claim would. have 'been costly to the carrier. It decided to exercise its option under -,-,ale 52a to use machinists for the sake of expedience. It had a right to do so. This does not mean, nor did carrier argue in the record, that it intends to do this in all similar cases in the future.

 It has been preZ-i.ous7iT been stated in this award that sheet metal workers have the task of disconnecting and connecting pipes as a basic right. It is expected that under normal conditions when a sheet metal worker is readil~,Y available, he sho-a-ld be assigned the task. This vroald be in line with the intent of the parties' agreement and within the interpretation of I'ula 97. TInen special situations arise, as they did i n the case now being considered by this Board, carrier, by contract, has the right to use its discretion in the assigrznent of connect.ng and disconnecting
 Form 1 Award No. 8151
 page 5 Docket T'to. 8071-T
 24,11'-SM°' 79

 work when it is essential for a machinist to get at the equilmxnent he is required to repair.

 After a thorough review oz" the record before it and a consideration of the argaments presented by both parties, this Board denies -tile c 1 aim.

                      A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                          DTATIONAI, RA IUTAD ADJUSTNL~IT BO.tLRD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

    --Ro4emar ie ,irasch ww.d:~rrlist~°aL~.~: :~ss~.szan.


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October, 1979.