Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9371
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. I7-'.C
 2 -B&O-EW-'
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

 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.

The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. On March 13, 1979 Carrier, by Bulletin No. I-E-RH, abolished six first shift electrician positions at the Baltimore and Ohio Glenwood Shop, Pittsburgh, Pa. On the same date, Carrier by Bulletin 2-E-RH advertised three electrician positions on the third trick.

 The Organization contends that as a result of the reduction in electrician positions, work previously performed by electricians was assigned to Machinist craft in violation of Rule 125 of the Agreement. That rule provides as follows;:
Form 1 Award No. 9371
 Page 2 Docket No. 9217-T
 2-B&o-Ew-'83
 electric clocks, and electric lighting fixtures; winding
 armatures, fields, magnet coils, rotors, transformers and
 starting compensators; inside and outside wiring at shops,
 buildings, yards, and on structures and ell conduit work
 in connection therewith (except outside wiring provided for
 in Rule 126); steam and electric locomotives, passenger
 train and motor cars, electric locomotives, passenger train
 and motor cars, electric tractors and trucks; include cable
 splicers, high-tension powerhouse and substation operators,
 high-tension linemen, and all other work properly recognized
 as electricians' work."

 Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that nothing in the Agreement prevents it from abolishing electrician positions and that the work assigned to machinist, had never been performed exclusively, if at all, by electricians. It adds that the original claim was overly vague and was "significantly altered" on the property. Thus, Carrier seeks rejection of the claim on procedural as well as substantive grounds.

 On the procedural issue, it appears to this Board that the grievance was not so altered as to become a different claim. Both the original claim and the Organization's letter of appeal referred to the abolition of electricians' positions on March 19, 1979. Both indicated that the grievance concerned the combining of electrical end mechanical work at the ready track. Accordingly, this claim is not procedurally deficient and is properly before this Board.

 As to the merits, it is clear that Rule 125 does not mandate the retention of electrician positions. Furthermore, while Rule 125 lists the duties of an electrician, it appears that that work had not been performed exclusively by the electrician craft. For example, machinists have always performed inspection work listed on the FRA inspection forms and Company inspection sheets (e.g. Items 103, 105, 106, etc.)

 We do not suggest that electricians' positions are interchangeable with those in the machinist craft. It is true, as the Organization maintains that the language of Rule 12 5 is mandatory. However, the evidence here suggests that the: work assigned the machinist craft had been performed by machinists in the past and the Electrical Workers have failed to show here that such inspection work belonged exclusively to the electrician craft under Rule 125 on this property.







By
 `i~o'~marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated a!/t Chicago, Illim is, this 2nd day of February, 1983.