Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9006
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8890
 2-BRCofC-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


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.

This dispute centers on the Carrier's use of a~private contractor to adjust a load of lumber on Car CN-662179. The Organization claims that the work should have been performed by Carmen under a letter of agreement dated May 21, 1941; Rule 91 (classification of work); and the subcontracting provisions of the September 25, 1964 Agreement (amended December 4, 1975).

 The May 21, 1941 Agreement Letter as signed by the Carrier reads in pertinent part, as follows:

Rule 91 does not make specific reference to work on lading. The referenced subcontracting language reads in pertinent part as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 9006
 page 2 Docket No. 8890
 2-BRCofC-CM-'82
 "The work set forth in the classification of work rules of
 the crafts parties to the Agreement or, in the scope rule
 if there is no classification of work rules, and all other
 work historically performed and generally recognized as
 work of the crafts pursuant to such classification of
 work rules or scope rules where applicable, will not be
 contracted except in accordance with the provisions of
 Section 1 through 4 of this Article II. In determining
 whether work falls within a scope rule or is historically
 performed and generally recognized within the meaning of
 this Article, the practices at the facility involved will
 govern.11

 While the Carrier agrees that Carmen have been properly assigned to adjustment of lading, the Carrier also argued without contradiction throughout the dispute procedure that it has also assigned such work on various occasions to outside contractors, as in this instance. The Carrier also argues that the 1941 Agreement Letter is not currently in effect in view of the provision of the Agreement dated September 8, 1959, as amended July 1, 1966, which states:

The Organization argues that the 1941 Agreement Letter is nevertheless currently effective, since, according to the Organization, a number of agreements were inadvertently not included in the 1950 or 1966 Agreements.

 Whether or not the 1941 Agreement Letter is in effect, the Board does not find that it grants exclusive jurisdiction of the adjustment of lading to the Carmen, as contrasted with its assignment to outside contractors. Work on lading is not referred to in the detailed Carmen classification of work rule, nor has the Organization demonstrated that such work is "historically performed and generally recognized" as work of the Carmen craft pursuant to the classification of work rule.

 The issue here is not which craft employed by the Carrier shall perform the work involved, but rather it is whether or not the Carrier may give it to an outside contractor. Since the Organization has not shown the work as included in its classification of work rule nor that it has exclusively performed the work, the claim must necessarily fall.


F orm 1
 Page 3

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 9006
 Docket No. 8890
 2 -BRCofC-CM-' 82

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


3By osemarie

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of March, 1982.