Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8992
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. (3557-T
 2-CR-BM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
 Parties to Dispute: ( Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings:
The gecond 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.

The organization alleges that on or about the period of October 12 through October 19, 1979, the Carrier violated its Classification of Work as set forth in Rule 79 of the Controlling Agreement, effective July 16, 1946, with revisions to July 1, 1951, when Carrier assigned employees of both the machinist and Sheet Metal Crafts to assist employees of its craft in the assembly of a metal building to house the Vacu-Blast machine, used in sand blasting operations. Rule 79 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:


1~ term 1. Award No. 8992
 Page 2' Docket No. 8557-T
 2-CR-BM-'82
 work, engine tex steel underframe and pressed steel
 tender truck frame, except where other mechanics perform
 this work; removin; and applying all stay bolts, radials,
 flexible caps, sieives, crown bolts, stay rods, and braces
 in boilers, tanks and drums; applying and removing arch
 tubes; operating punches and shears for shaping and
 forming, pneumatic stay-bolt breakers, air rams and
 hammers; bull, jam, and yoke riveters; boilermakers' work
 in connection with building and repairing of steam
 shovels, derricks, booms, housing, circles, and coal
 buggies, I-beam, channel iron, angle iron, and T-iron work;
 all drilling, cutting and tapping, and operating rolls in
 connection with boilermakers' work; oxyacetylene, thermit,
 and electric welding on work generally recognized as
 boilermakers' work, and all other work generally recognized
 as boilermakers' work. It is understood that present
 practice in the performance of work between boilermakers
 and carmen will continue."

 The Organization maintains the physical structure of the subject building to be as follows:











The Organization argues that when these physical elements of the building set forth above are matched against its Classification of Work Rule, Rule 79, it is readily apparent that the work in question belongs to employees of its craft; specifically the most pertinent being the angle iron and the 12 gauge sheet metal which is heavier than 16 gauge sheet metal. The Organization further argues the work accrues to employees of its craft based on past history and practice in that it asserts the Boilermaker Craft has in the past twenty-five (25) years built two buildings to house sand blast operations and that this fact has not, at any time, been refuted by the Carrier.

 harrier asserts the Organization's reliance on Rule 79 is an attempt on their part to equate the word housing which appears in Rule 79 with the erection of the building in which the Vacu-Blast Machine is located. Such conclusion, Carrier argues, cannot properly be made inasmuch as the housin referred to in Rule 79 Pains solely to housing which is designed and used to protect moving parts of equipment machinery, and not to buildings such as the one in dispute in the 1otetaxticase. Thus Carrier maintains, Rule 79, can lend no proper support
 Form 1 Award No. 8992
 Page 3 Docket No. 8557-T
 2-CR-BM-182

 to_the Organization's,claim and accompanying delegations. Carrier additionally argues the Organization's attempt. to rely on past practice as support for the instant claim must necessarily fail in that the organization has been unable to establish the existence of such a past practice granting to its craft employees the type of work in question.

 In its e4 wptI y-*ve review of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the instant case, the Board finds the Organization has failed in its burden of proof to offer either contractual support or something of greater significance with regard to past practice other than mere assertion, in its effort to substantiate the subject aavl~`.J* that which accrues to the members of its craft. Had the Organization been able to demonstrate, without doubt, that 16 gauge metal or heavier was involved in the assembly of the subject building, this Board would then have been persuaded the work in question belonged to members of the Boilermakers' Craft. Absent too, a definitive showing of a past practice the Board has no other alternative but to deny the instant claim. Finally, as an aside, the Board notes no economic hardship was suffered by the Claimants as they each were compensated for their share of the work performed in assemblying the subject building.

    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY
      semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of March, 1982.