Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9084
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8778-T
 2-ICG-MA-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and
 Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers


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.



Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 9084
 Docket No. 8778-T
 2-ICG-MA-`82

 On the claim date, Maintenance of Way Employees performed certain work on undercutter roadway machinery within the Iselin Shop, and the Machinists submitted a claim asserting that it was improper for these employees to perform that work.

 Primarily, the Organization relies upon that portion of Rule 110 which reserves to them work of stripping and repairing engines of roadway machinery, and Rule 122 which concerns all other work generally recognized as Machinist work.

 We have been unable to find that the rules cited by the Employes specifically cover the type of machinery here involved in this dispute. Thus, in order to prevail, the Employes must demonstrate that they have performed this work exclusively in the past. The record is rather clear that the Employes have not done soy but rather, that the Maintenance of Way forces have performed this work.

 We have not ignored the contention that the Carrier has had the work in question performed at a point where the Machinists' seniority controls, but we do not feel that that fact, in and of itself, is sufficient to grant it jurisdiction of the work when the contract is not specific and other employes have performed the work in the past. Accordingly, we will deny the claim.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attests Acting Executive Secretary

By / . ..~ ..-c.~ t~. _
 osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May, 1982.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division






Employes are, and Carriers should be, thankful that all Referees do not give cases submitted to this Board such shallow consideration as is sometimes requested of them.
 Award No. 908+ to Docket No. 8778-T issued by the majority with Referee Joseph A. Sickles sitting as Neutral Board Member is a most outright vicious attack upon the machinists Classification of Work Rule and Scope.Rule pertaining to our contractual right to perform work within a seniority jurisdiction.
 This is a "Seniority Jurisdictional Dispute" as the work performed in Iselin Shop by Maintenance of Way Employes is work on equipment contracted to Machinists by the Machinist Classification of Work, Rules 102 through 122 inclusive, and performed by M of W employes in a shop where Machinists hold seniority and no M of W employes hold seniority.

    Contrary to the decision of the majority the work in dispute:


"changing roller bearings on excavating chain, servicing oiling system, control arms, drive shaft, installing rubber conveyor belt, inspecting, changing fuel filters and greasing" is work exclusively reserved to Machinists by agreement and to be performed by Machinists within their seniority jurisdiction.
 Award 908+ is palpably erroneous and is of no precedential value as it does not rest four square with the Rules of the Controlling Agreement applicable to the issues in dispute.
 AWARD 9084 Page 2

    The evidence of record before this Board proves beyond any doubt that a -

travesty of justice has been committed by the majority. The same evidence of
 record unrefutably portrays that the findings and conclusion of the majority
 are palpably erroneous, and to which this vigorous dissent is directed.

                                        ~~r.~,,~

                            Richard A. W tbYbo


                            & , /J

                            Martin ~7ullen


                                          r

                            James A. McAteer

                CARRIER MEMBERS' REPLY TO

                LABOR MEMBERS' DISSENT TO

                AWARD 9084, Doer 8778-T

                Referee J. A. Sickles


The accusation made by the author of the Dissent that the Majority gave "shallow consideration" to this case is completely unfoiznded as a perusal of the Award clearly demonstrates.
 The dispute submitted to the Board involved a claim submitted by the Machinists' Organization based on an erroneous premise that Maintenance of Way employees performed work accruing to the Machinists' craft, namely, general maintenance work on the Plasser Undercutter Machine at Jackson, Tennessee.
 The established norm in cases of this type is that the Employees have the burden of proof to establish that: 1) the work claimed is assigned to them by specific reference in the agreement, or, 2) that the work has been assigned to members of the Machinists' craft exclusively throughout the system. This litmus test has been continuously applied by this Board in numerous Awards. See, for example, Second Division Awards Nos. 2544,
 3662, 4172, 4292, 4517, 4990, 5151, 5577, 5573, 6082, 6608, 7141, among many others.
 An examination of the Findings in this Award establishes that the Majority applied this test to the dispute before it and correctly found that the work in dispute was not specifically covered in the applicable Agreement rules nor had the Employees demonstrated t::at the-; had exclusively performed the work in the past. This being the case, the Majority ruled that the location where the work was performed was not controlling due to the Employees' failure to sustain the burden
 of proof that the work accrued to them in the first instance.

 CARRIER MEMBERS' REPLY TO LABOR MEMBERS' DISSENT TO AWARD 908+, DOCKET 8778-T
An experienced reader of this Award will recognize that the diatribe

 of the Labor Members cannot detract from a sound and well-reasoned Award.

    J.

,, a M. FAG·

 LEFKOW

 J. F. : JASON

 R 0 CO LL

    -r


V, VARGA