Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMNT BOARD Award No. 841+2
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 83118-T
 2-BNI-MA-'80
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

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, 1934.

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

Claimants contend that Carrier violated Machinist Agreement Rules 27(a), 50 and 51 when it assigned employees of the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks to perform comprehensive repair work on the Boring and Adzer machine at the Brainerd, Minnesota Tie Facility. It argues that the aforesaid rules, when read in their entirety describe the work of the machinists and reserve to them the exclusive right to perform such work.

 Carrier, contrawise, disputes these contentions and notes that BRAC employees traditionally performed this work at the Brainerd site and asserts that Rules 27(a), 50 and 51 do not vest exclusivity. It contends that Rule 27(a) merely provides that Machinists shall do the work set forth in the craft classification of work rules and does not specify any work. It avers that Rule 50 covers
 Form 1 Award No. 841+2
 Page 2 Docket No. 8348-T
 2-BNI-MA-180

 Machinist qualifications and does not grant any specific work entitlements and that lZule 51 does not grant exclusivity to remove parts from an electrically driven motor. It asserts that the Machinist Agreement on the former Northern Pacific Railway, only applied to the employees in the Mechanical Department and that the Brainerd and Paradise Tie Treatment Plants were not part of the Mechanical Department.

 In our review of the case, we take judicial notice that the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks were notified of this claim, pursuant to Section 3(j) of the Amended Railway labor Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Transportation-Communication Employees Union vs. Union Pacific Railroad 385U.S. 1571 5- (1966) and that said employee organization forwarded to the Division a third party submission. The pivotal question, thus before us, is whether the contested work exclusively belonged to the Machinists. The Brainerd Tie and Timber Treating Plant is a separate facility and employees in that plant are covered by a separate agreement. Its primary purpose is to treat ties and timbers for railroad maintenance. The Boring and Adzer Machine carves recesses into the tie for the placement of tie plates and drills holes for the spikes which are used to secure the rail to the ties. The Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks consummated its first collective agreement with the Northern Pacific Railway on September 1, 1943, which covered the employees in the Brainerd and the Paradise plants. It is the only labor organization that ever represented employees at these locations. BRAC contends that it traditionally performed this work.



It does not by definition restrict its coverage and application to the signatory, unions represented by System Federation No. 7, but applies to other employee organizations as well, which in this instance includes BRAC. Both contesting organizations were under separate agreements with the former Northern Pacific Railway. But close reading of the record shows that the former agreement between the Machinists and the Northern Pacific applied only to the employees in the Mechanical Department, which did not include employees at the Brainerd and Paradise Tie Treatment Plants. The Tie Treatment Plants were excluded. The June 15, 1966 Agreement relative to the fireless locomotive did not grant the Machinists the right to perform work at the Brainerd location, but limited such work exclusively to the locomotive. In fact, the last paragraph of this AgreemE:nt provides that:
 Form 1 Award No. 8442
 Page 3 Docket No. 8U-T
 2-BNI-MA-'80
 "The foregoing constitutes a full and complete settlement of the
 claims of Machinists Erickson and Novick. The settlement will
 not be construed as establishing a precedent insofar as work on
 other than the locomotive assigned to the Brainerd Tie Plant is
 concerned."

 Clearly, we cannot infer or conclude from these agreements that the work of repairing the Boring and Adzer Machine accrued to Machinists. Admittedly, outside help was called in to assist or advise the Tie Plant on technical problems, but such assistance was not tantamount to a relinquishment of work. The affirmations submitted by individuals that said work belonged to the Machinists were essentially non-specific and the travelling mechanic, who it appears was not assigned to Brainerd Plant, acknowledged that, "he was not being called to take care of the necessary maintenance and repairs of machines at this facility".

 In the instant case, the BRAC employees removed parts from a Boring and Adzer Machine which included the removal of the Adzer drive motor and the disassembly of the main gear reduction assembly. The bullgear shaft and spacer ring were found defective and sent to Carrier's Brainerd Reclamation Plant for repairs by Machinists. They were returned to the Tie Plant and reassembled. It was not work that was traditionally performed by Machinists or accrued to them by pre merger agreement or past practice. It was work that was historically performed by the clerks at the Brainerd Tie Plant and protected by Rule 98(c) (Supra). In Second Division Award 7487, we held in pertinent part that:

We don't find that Claimants have demonstrated such exclusivity prior to the 1970 merger or that the work in question was covered by the Machinists' Agreement. We will deny the claim.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

By r


    RoJsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September, 1980.