Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8603
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8223-T
 2 -MP-MA-'81
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George E. Larney w'ien award was rendered.
 International Associa.ion of Machinists and
 Parties to Dispute: (~ Aerospace W.)rkers

Dispute: Claim of Employes:



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Boa d, 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.

The eight aforecited Claimants are members of the Machinist Craft and are employed at Carrier's Wheel Shop Facility looted at North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Wheel Shop is a completely automated car vheel assembly line and within the line is an axle cleaning machine located in the axle storage room. This machine is used, according to the Carrier, to clean reclaimable freight car axles once a part of wheel sets which have routinely been removed from cars and locomotives when inspections have revealed the viheels fail to meet established standards or for other various reasons. The axle cleaning machine is described by the Carrier as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 8603
 Page 2 Docket No. 8223-T

And in describing part of the machine's construction, Carrier states:

The Carrier relates that because the various parts of the axle cleaner inside of the housing are continuously subject to th: scouring action of steel shot, it is necessary, on occas.~.on, to replace these parts. In the instant case, the axle cleaning machine underwent repairs due to bla3t fatigue on date of August 26, 1976. A part of the repairs included replacing the inlet and outlet door channels. Carrier assigned this specific task to employees of the Boilermakers' Craft even though an objection was raised at the time by the machinist Local Chairman that the work of replacing the door channels belonged to the Machinists' Craft.

 The Machinists' Organization, hereinafter referred to simply as the Organization, takes the position the disputed work was misassigned by the Carrier, basing its assertion on the clear and unambiguous language of both Rules 2Qu) and 52(a) of the Controlling Agreement, bearing effective date of June 1, 1960. In relevant part, Rule 26(a) reads as follows:

And in whole, Rule 52 (a) reads as follows:

motor cars; removing, repairing, and applying trailer and -
 engine trucks and parts thereof; cab stands or sheets, waste
 Form 1 Award No. 8603
 Page 3 Docket No. 8223-T
 2 -3.,iP-MA-' 81
 "sheets, runningboard brackets, hand rail brackets, sand
 boxes, and dome castings; locomotile spring and spring
 rigging work, driver brake and brad=a rigging (see Note C);
 and all other work generally recognized as Machinists' work.
 Machinists may connect and disconnect any wiring, coupling,
 or pipe connections necessary to make or repair machinery or
 equipment."

 The Organization contends that Rule 52 (a) reserves to it the work of "Maintaining ... other shop machinery", and that this language clearly and unambiguously covers the repair work in question here, that of replacing the channel doors of t'he axle cleaning machine. In further support of its position, the Organization relies on Second Division Award 6762 in which the Board stated in part the following:








The Carrier takes the position that the work in question is not reserved by rule or practice exclusively to the Machinists' Craft. To the contrary, Carrier asserts that the work was .appropriately assigned to employees of the Boilermakers' Craft based on that Organisation's Classification of Work Rule - Rule 62(a) of the Controlling Agreement. Rule 62 (a) reads in whole as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 8603
 Page 4 Docket No. 8223-T
 2 -MP-Ma-' 81
 "flanging and flue work in fire box; building, repairing
 and applying steel cabs; applying s:eel runningboards,
 and steps; laying out and fitting up any sheet iron or
 sheet metal work made of 16-gauge iron or heavier in
 connection with boilermakers' work, including pressed
 steel fronts and doors, all flue work in front end; in
 specting, adjusting, and repairing front end netting and
 draft appliances; ash pans and rigging; engine tender and
 steel underframes and steel tender truck frames, except
 where other mechanics perform this work; removing and
 applying all staybolts, radials, flexible caps and sleeves,
 crownbolts, stay rods and braces in boilers, tanks and
 drums; bumping of crown sheets and staybolts; tapping out
 holes and running in stay bolts in new and old work;
 driving staybolts; applying arch tubes; operators of punch
 and shear machines except foi cutting bar stock and scrap;
 operating pneumatic staybolt prakers, pneumatic hammers,
 bull and yoke riveters; boilermakers' work in connection
 with the building and repairing of steam shovels, derricks,
 booms, housing circles and coal buggias; I-beams, channel
 iron, angle iron and T-iron, steam, air and water tight work
 in connection with boilermakers' work; drilling, cutting and
 tapping and operating rolls, except as provided for in Rule



Carrier contends the axle cleaning machine is a housing device and notes the
 door channels are fabricated out of heavy gauge angle iron. Therefore, concludes
 the Carrier, it logically follows that the disputed work belongs to the Boilermakers'
 Craft based on the language of Rule 62(a). Furthermore, Carrier avers, the disputed
 work has been performed by the Boilermakers from the beginning, whenever it was
 necessary to replace the door channels and therefore based on past practice alone,
 the work in question belongs to the Boilermakers' Craft and therefore was properly
 assigned on the claim date, August 26, 1976.
 Upon a close examination and review of all the evidence of record, the Board
 arrives at the following determinations:
 1. Neither party has placed before us sufficient evidence in support of
 which Craft, that of the Machinists or Boilermakers, has performed the
 disputed work in the past, and therefore we are unable to apply this test
 in our deliberations in the case at bar.
 2. Absent the application of past practice, we are faced with making a
 determination as to which of the two Crafts' Classification of Work
 Rules cited above - either Rule 52(a) or 62(a) would best cover the
 disputed work. We move to make this determination notwithstanding
 Carrier's objection that in so comparing the two Organization's r_0"'
 classification of work rules, the "Board opens the door to becoming, in
Form 1 Page 5

 Award No. 8603
 Docket No. 8223-C
 2-MP-MA-'8l

 In making a comparative analysis of Rules 52 (a) and 62(a), we find ;hat the work in question, that is, replacing the inlet and outlet door channels of the: axle cleaning machine, is better covered under Rule 52(a), the Machinists' Classification Work Rule than under the Boilermakers' Rule 62(a). We therefore, accordingly_ rule to sustain the instant claim and to award each of the Claimants eight (8) hours pay at the prevailing pro rata rate in existence fcr their job classification at the time the claim arose.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained. Each Claimant to receive eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate for their job classification in existence at the time the claim arose.

NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Crder of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illim is, this 21st day of January, 1981.