Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8935
 2-CR-EW-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation

 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 aver the dispute involved herein.

Claimants are assigned to a regular position identified as "Search", according to the bulletin on which they bid. For seven hours on May 9, 1979, the Claimant; were assigned, as described by the Carrier, "to test run Unit 6085 and also work Unit 6691 to determine cause of constant wheel slip" at the "Refuel Pad".

 The Organization offered evidence of bulletined positions located at the "Fuel Pad" involving, for example, "Trouble shoot, repair or renew electrical equipment an locomotives in shop with electrical trouble".

 The Claimants argue they should have received an additional three hours' pay for work at the "Pad" under the terms of Rule 2-A-4(b), which reads as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 8868
 Page 2 Docket No. 8935
 2-CR-EW-'82

 The Carrier argues that the payment is inapplicable because work at the "Pad" for those assigned to "Search" is work "comprehended in (the Claimant's) regular assignment".

 Rule 2-A-4(b) is part of the May 1, 1979 Agreement. The Carrier argues that Electricians assigned to "Search" as a matter of practice prior to May 1, 1979 performed the work referred to in this dispute. Thus, argues the Carrier, the work is "comprehended" in the assignment.

 The difficulty with the Carrier's position is that Rule 2-A-4(b) provides for a three-hour payment vh ich was not called for prior to the effectiveness of the Agreement. The parties adopt new rules for the purpose of changing that which prevailed theretofore.

 Thus, it is not enough to show that "Search" employes occasionally worked at the "Pad" in the past. Absent a rule to so provide, they could not receive a three-hour premium payment for such work.

 The Organization has shown separate bulletin positions for "Search" and those located at the "Pad". On the face of such evidence, it can be logically argued that one position is not "comprehended" in the other. If the Carrier wishes to make an affirmative defense that the "Search" position regularly "comprehends" work at the Pad, it is not enough simply to say it has happened before without premium payment, since -- according to the Carrier -- the previous Agreement at the location did not include the provision for premium payment.

 The Board was offered no showing of proof that the "Search" position is not something different from those positions located at the "Pad". The Carrier has presented no convincing argument as to the meaning of the word "regularly". In view of this, the Board must conclude that the newly adopted Rule 2-A-4(b) is applicable.

 To adopt the Carrier's argument would be to say that an employe must perform work he has never been assigned to bCfore in order to receive payment under Rule 2-A-4(b). The Board does not find the language of the rule as restrictive as this.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board
    _ __~ _ ] . `.. _ l ;; > ~~-.,


      By qsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant l


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of January, 1982. -