Parties to Dispute:
 ( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific 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 employes 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.


At the time this claim arose, Claimant, K. Morrow, held seniority as an Electrician Helper - Crane Operator at Carrier's facilities in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On twenty-three days during the period May and June of 1979, Carrier assigned one Blacksmith and three Carmen, who are not represented by the Organization, to operate the overhead crane on the north end of Tracks One and Two in the Freight Car Shop.
 Form 1 Award No. 9722
 Page 2 Docket No. 9239-T
 2-CMSP&P-EW-'83
As a result of Carrier's actions, the Organization filed this claim. In it the organization alleges that Carrier violated Rule 72 of the Agreement as well as a Memorandum of Agreement dated January 1, 1961 when it failed to assign the Claimant to operate the overhead crane on the days in question.




















The Organization contends that Rule 72 and the above Memorandum mandate that all Crane Operator assignments be performed by Electricians. The Organization notes, that at the time the work in question was assigned to a Blacksmith and Carmen, Claimant had been furloughed as a Crane Operator. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Agreement clearly requires that all Crane Operators will be added to the Electrician Helpers Seniority Roster. In the Organization's view, Claimant was, thus, entitled to any Crane Operator assignment which arose during the time of his furlough.
In addition, the Organization argues that members of its craft have traditionally operated cranes for many years. In fact, the Organization points out that in 1980 Carrier improperly attempted to assign a Carman to the duties of a Crane Operator. When Carrier was advised of its error, it rectified the situation by assigning an Electrician to the position of Freight Shop Crane Opeator. Thus, the Organization concludes that Carrier has acknowledged that the operation of cranes belongs to its craft. Accordingly, the Organization asks that the claim be sustained and that the Claimant be appropriately compensated.
 Form 1 Award No. 9722
Page 3 Docket No. 9239-T
 2-CMSP&P-EW-'83
Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that neither Rule 72 nor the Memorandum of Agreement apply to the facts of this case. Carrier argues that Rule 72 relates only to the operation of electric traveling cranes whose capacity is forty tons or more. Here, Carrier points out, the Blacksmith and Carmen were assigned to cranes whose capacity was less than forty tons. Thus, Carrier contends that there is no Rule in the Agreement which specifically requires that Electricians perform the work in question.
In addition, Carrier maintains that it has often assigned Carmen or Blacksmiths to operate cranes when Electricians Helpers - Crane Operators were not available. While the Claimant had been furloughed as a Crane Operator he had been recalled as an Electrician Helper. Thus, in Carrier's view, Claimant was not available to perform the duties of a Crane Operator during May and June 1979. Therefore, Carrier concludes that the practice on the property supports its position. Accordingly, it asks that the claim be denied.
This dispute centers on the applicability of Rule 72 to this case. If Rule 72 applies, then the Organization need not prove the existence of an exclusive past practice with respect to the work in question. However, it is clear that Rule 72 is inapplicable to the facts of this claim. Rule 72 by its very terms includes "operators of travelling cranes, capacity 40 tons and over". The record evidence indicates that the cranes) in question had a capacity of under forty tons. Whether they were in all other respects identical to the larger capacity cranes is irrelevant. The language of the Rule is clear and unambiguous. It applies only to the larger capacity cranes and not to the ones which are the subject of this dispute.
In addition, the Memorandum of Agreement makes no reference to the duties of a Crane Operator covered by its terms. It merely lists the procedures by which those employees carried on the Crane Operators Seniority Roster will be incorporated into the Electrician Helpers Seniority Roster. As such, it does not support the Organization's position here.
Accordingly, in order to prevail, the Organization must prove that the operation of cranes belongs exclusively, on a system-wide basis, to members of its craft. It has not met this burden of proof here. The record reveals that Carrier has assigned Carmen to perform the work of Crane Operators when Electrician Helpers/Crane Operators were not available. Here, Claimant was regularly assigned as an Electrician Helper during May and June of 1979. Thus, he was not available to perform Crane Operator work during that same period of time. As such, the Organization has not proven that members of its craft have exclusives performed the disputed work.
Finally, we note that the Organization's reliance on various cited Awards is misplaced. Simply stated, they apply to situations where either by Agreement: or practice the employees had exclusively performed the work at issue at the location in question. As noted above, the record reveals no such practice nor Agreement support. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 9722
 Page 4 Docket No. 9239-T
 2-CMSP&P-EW-'83





                                By Order of Second Division


ATTEST: i~t^~ e , __ e:::- ~0~gP4
          Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th dad of November 1983.