Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9956
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9587
 2-CR-MA-184
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Refereee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and
 ( Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated Rule 2-A-4(b) of the Controlling Agreement when it assigned two machinists from the Heavy Repair gang to perform work not comprehended in their regular assignment, to perform work of coupling, setting up air brakes and testing air on thirteen (13) units to go in a hospital train to Altoona Shops, Altoona, Pa. This work at Enola Locomotive Terminal is performed by the Running Repair gang.
2. That the Carrier be required to compensate Machinists B. J. Vogl and G. J. Lackey three (3) hours pay each at the applicable rate for January 24, 1980.
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.


The Organization contends that Carrier violated the controlling Agreement, specifically Rule 2-A-4(b) when it assigned Claimants to perform work which was rot comprehended in their position. It asserts that the work in question wasp not work of the heavy repair gang, but work that is comprehended in Running Repair assignments. It avers that the work performed on the thirteen (13) units did! not require repair at the Enola Locomotive Terminal, but instead at the Altoona Back Shop. It argues that coupling the thirteen (13) dead units, setting up air brakes and testing air outside o f the Enola Locomotive Terminal was work that: properly belonged to the Running Repair positions, and thus not encompassed within the normative duty assignments of Claimants. It maintains that the work did not involve a regular assigned vacancy and as such Rule 2-A-4(a)4 is inapplicable. This Rule reads:

Form 1 Award No. 9956
 Page 2 Docket No. 9587
 2-CR-MA-184
Carrier contends that the work performed was comprehended within Claimants regular assignments and there is no attached penalty when they were required to work outside the Enola Locomotive Terminal on #1 Track. It argues that working on shopped diesel units and dead diesel unit is work that belongs to the Heavy Repair Gang and it does not trigger penalty payments under Rule 2-A-4(b) when it is performed in the new yard, designated as #1 Track. It maintains that Rule 2-A-4(b) does not provide penalty compensation for moving front one location to another,, and avers that the work performed was properly assigned. It argues that as a matter of past practice, all heavy repair work at the Enola Locomotive Terminal was performed by the Heavy Repair Gang without restriction to a given track provided it was performed at this situs.

argue that the work was comprehended within the assignments of the Regular
 Repair Gang, but we have no convincing proof that it was so performed. To be sure,
 the position advertisement of the Power Pusher position requires that the incumbent
 be qualified on 6, 8, 24RL and 26L Air Brake Equipment, but we have no evidence
 that such equipment was used to perform this work. With the exception of this
 additional requirement, both position advertisements or machinists in the Heavy
 Repair Gang and Running Repair Gang require the inspection, testing and repairing
 of diesel electric and electric locomotives, which by definition, reflects a
 marked congruence of functions. We have no detailed breakdown of the respective _
 machinist position's duties or how their work differs. In the absence of proof,
 such as persuasive statements from machinists employed in the Running Repair Gang
 that such work was comprehended in their assignments or a clear and unmistakable
 demonstration that this work was not comprehended in Heavy Repair Gang's
 assignments, we are constrained by this record to dismiss the claim. Merely
 asserting that this work was not comprehended within their assignments and
 averring that Rule 2-A-4(b) is applicable is insufficient by itself to prevail in
 this instance.





                            By Order of Second Division


At
 test:
        Nancy J. yff - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of June, 1984