Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9990
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9888-T
 2-N&W-SMW-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Tedford E. Schoonover when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement, other than employees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Craft (Carmen) were improperly assigned to perform pipe work consisting of cutting, fitting and installing guard rail handrail constructed from one and one half (1-1/2) inch pipe and three quarter (3/4) inch pipe in the Paint Shop, Portsmouth Shop, Portsmouth, Ohio on January 29, 1981 through March 27, 1981.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate Sheet Metal Workers, J. W. Irwin, P. J. Weber, D. S. Austin and E. N. Jacobs in the amount of six hundred and seventy two (672) hours at the pro rata rate, to be equally divided among them for this work.
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employes 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.


Portsmouth, Ohio, the point referred to in the claim, is a main terminal on the Scioto Division of the Eastern Region of the N& W. At that point the carrier operates repair tracks and transportation yards where sheet metal workers are employed.
According to the organization the Carrier erred in the assignment of the work described in the claim in that using carmen to perform such work is contrary to the provisions of Rule No. 84 of the controlling labor agreement. The rule provides:



Form 1 Award No. 9990
 Page 2 Docket No. 9888-T
 2-N& W-SMW- ' 84
 "continue relative to gauge of iron), including brazing, soldering,
 tinning, leading and babbitting (except car and tender truck journal -
 bearings) the bending, fitting, cutting, threading (when men are
 regularly assigned to operate pipecutting and threading machines),
 brazing, connecting and disconnecting o f air, water, gas, oil and
 steam pipes, the operation of babbitt fires (in connection with sheet
 metal workers' work), oxyacetylene, thermit and electric welding, and
 all other work generally recognized as sheet metal workers' work."
 (Emphasis added).




In further support of the claim the organization argues that the rules are clear in providing that sheet metal workers have a right to the work in question, and further,
 that there are no provisions for overlapping jurisdiction of work between carmen
 and sheet metal workers. It is also asserted by the Organization that at Roanoke
 Shops all pipe work except air brake equipment relative to freight car building and
 repair has been performed by sheet metal workers.
 In contesting the claim, Carrier points out that other crafts and other
 departments (including those at Portsmouth) have, on many occasions in the past,
 performed similar work to that involved in the instant claim. The work of cutting,
 fitting, welding and attaching pipe installed as safety rails at Portsmouth °
 and elsewhere on the N&W System has been performed in the past by various crafts
 and has never been performed exclusively by any one craft. The work of fabrication
 and installation o f hand rails and guard rails does not belong exclusively to
 any craft by rule, custom or practice. Such work can and is performed by various
 crafts.
 Inasmuch as the claim contests the right o f carmen to perform the work in
 question the Board informed the Carmen's Organization of the claim. The response
 by the Carmen denies the allegations of the .Sheet Metal Workers and refers to
 prior awards dealing with jurisdictional claims similar to those presented in the
 instant dispute. In Award No. 7147, the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
 contended that caanen performed similar work in Roanoke contrary to Rule 84. The
 alleged violation in that case was described as follows:
 "(Carmen) were improperly assigned to perform pipe work consisting
 of cutting, fitting, installing guard rail hand rail constructed
 from one and one ha1-f (1-1/12) inch pipe and three quarter (3/4) inch
 pipe in the Scrub Room, Roanoke Shops, Roanoke, Virginia on May 7, 1974.
Evidence shows instances in the past where other crafts performed identical work and also that the language o f the rule does not support the contention that sheet metal workers have exclusive rights to the work. The claim of the Organization as to handrail work has been the subject of a number of Awards in the past and all were denials. In Award No. 7147, Referee Zumas denied the claim where carmen had done the work of cutting, fitting and installing pipe for handrails in the Scrub Room at Roanoke Shops. In an earlier Award No. 5951 also decided by Referee Z umas, a sheet metal worker's claim was denied where removal and installing of new sewer lines had been done by B&B Carpenters at Roanoke Shops. In this case the referee stated:
 Form 1 Award No. 9990
 Page 3 Docket No. 9888-T
 2-N&W-SMW-'84
 "Rule 84, relied on by the Organization, is vague and unclear.
 There is no classification under the rule which covers the work
 complained of.
 The record does disclose, however, that in the past this kind of work
 had been performed by Maintenance of Wag employes. There is no need
 to cite authority for the long standing tenet of this Board that absent
 a clear and unambiguous rule, past practice governs."
There was still a third claim on this same carrier filed by the Sheet Metal Workers involving similar circumstances i.e., Award No. 6049. That was another case in which the Organization alleged violation of Rule 84 because B&B Carpenters were used to perform pipe work in the installation of handrails converting diesel maintenance facilities at Roanoke to an assembly line operation. That claim was denied with the comment that the Organization failed to show their right to the work by the past practice. Also cited was the prior award of Referee Zumas noting that Rule No. 84 is vague and unclear.
Insofar as Portsmouth is concerned the evidence cites some five instances wherein carmen were used to assemble and install handrails and scaffolding.
Our review of the evidence shows the record to be replete with evidence showing the Sheet Metal Workers Organization does not have exclusive claim to the work in question. It must also be noted that the pipe work referred to in Rule 84 specifies "air, water, gas, oil and steam pipes" under particular conditions. None of the conditions referred to in the rule involves pipe work in the assembly and installation of handrails.
In conclusion it must be observed that the principle here involved has been settled previously in numerous awards. Nothing new has been added in support of the claim that sheet metal workers have exclusive claim to the work. The evidence does not support the claim in this case just as in the prior cases.






ATTEST y~%'/''~ ~
 Nancy J. D ~ - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1984.