Dorm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.896g
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8343-T
 2-MP-CM-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Find 3.n s

 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 .Tune 21, 1934.

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

The pertinent facts in this case are uncontested On December 27, 1977, the Carrier sent Mechanical Foreman D. L. Davis, Road Foreman J. R. Harris and two Carmen from Corpus Christi, Texas to Harlingen, Texas to remove the traction motor from Diesel Unit No. 2267. Two additional Carmen, stationed at Harlingen, assisted in jacking the engine and performed other incidental tasks. The project took approximately twelve hours to complete. Harlingen is an outlying point in -the Houston Seniority District while C armen at Corpus Christi are not within that seniority subdivislnn (Rule 137). No Machinists are employed at either Harlingen Corpus cir.ris" L .

 The )rganization brings this claim on behalf of three Carmen holding seniority at EarlinL;en for a total of thirty-two hours of pay (at the premium rate) contending that the work of removing the traction motor was exclusively reserved. to Carmen at Harlingen. According to the Organization, Rule 25(a) confines seniority to Harlingen and Gannpn from another seniority point may not perform work at Harlingen. The Organization concedes that the disputed work is not expressly reserved to Carmen under the Carmen's Classification Rule but it
 Award No. 8965
 Docket No. 8343-T
 2-MP-CM-'82

 nonetheless argues that the Claimants had an absolute right to perform the disputed work (which ordinarily belongs to Machinists) at Harlingen pursuant to itule ''6(b). The Carrier places a different interpretation on Rule 26(b). The Carrier contends that since there were no machinists employed at either Corpus Christi or Harlingen, the Carmen at Harlingen mere entitled to perform work outside their craft only to the extent the Carmen were capable of performing the work. In this instance, the Carrier asserts that the Carmen from Corpus Christi who removed the traction motor had the special knowledge and experience necessary to properly perform the task while the Claimants were not qualified to do the work.

 The disputed work in this case is governed by Rule 26(b). The work performed on Diesel Unit No. 2_267 is normally reserved to another craft.. No employes of the other craft were stationed at Harlingen. Thus, the Claimants' right to perform the disputed work rests on the capability provision of Rule 26(b) rather than the seniority lines set forth in Rules 25 and 137. The Organization, which shoulders the burden of proof, has not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Claimants have the requisite ability to remove a traction motor. Indeed, it appears from the record that Claimants have little or no experience with locomotive work. The Carrier complied with Rule 26(b) by assigning Carmen from Harlingen to set and operate the jacks which was consistent with their capabilities. Thus, we must deny the claim.

 The Carrier has also argued that this Board lacks jurisdiction over this claim because the Organization ostensibly failed to handle this claim in the usual manner on the property. Since we have denied the claim on the merits, we need not address this issue.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 l at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of March, 1_982.