Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10090
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9883-T
 2-BN-CM-184
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Tedford E. Schoonover when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Burlington Northern 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.


In explanation of the claim the organization states that Carman D. R. Jameson was available and a qualified person to perform the work described as follows:

Form 1 Award No. 10090
 Page 2 Docket No. 9883-T
 2-BN-CM-184
The record shows that there have been jurisdictional differences between the Carmen's and Firemen and Oilers' organizations for many years over work such as covered by this claim. The Carmen endeavored without success to secure from the Firemen and Oilers' organization a clearance reserving to carmen exclusive right to the work in question.
In consideration of this claim as it relates to the jurisdictional differences between the Carmen's and the Firemen and Oilers' organizations the latter was notified and requested to provide a statement of position. Such statement was provided by Wm. B. Hayes, General Chairman, System Council #11 as follows:











Rule 51 of the applicable labor agreement specifies that in the event of a jurisdictional dispute the craft performing the work shall continue to do so until the dispute is settled by the crafts involved. The rule also provides that where an allocation of work cannot be agreed upon in conference between the carrier and the union the carrier may require the work to be performed by the craft they consider entitled to the work.
Evidence of the jurisdictional problem and understandings reached between the Brotherhood and the carrier on the question of laborers performing work claimed by the Carmen is contained in the following excerpt of a letter of September 27, 1977 signed by the General Superintendent Car Department:


The above letter illustrates understandings effected between the Carmen's Organization and the carrier in a compromise settlement as to which craft would perform the work and also illustrates that the Carmen did not have exclusive jurisdiction.
 Form 1 Award No. 10090
 Page 3 Docket No. 9883-T
 2-BN-CM-184
The claim, as presented on the property was initially declined because it was presented to J. H. Hall, Superintendent of the Locomotive Shop rather than J. R. Wilson, Superintendent of the Consolidated Freight Car Shop where the work was performed. The record indicates that at no time was the claim presented to Mr. Wilson as required by Rule 34 (a) which provides that "claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employe involved, to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days of the occurrence on which the claim is based." Failure to file the claim with the proper officer in violation of the above rule would appear to support Carrier contention the claim should be dismissed. However, without waiving its position in this regard, carrier proceeded to consider the claim on its merits and this Board will do likewise.
In support of the claim the Organization submits carrier violated Rule 11.5 of the Agreement as follows:







Examination of the above rules shows that the work of building, maintaining and dismantling of passenger and freight cars is recognized as carmen's work.
The Organization cites Award 1363, but examination of that award shows the circumstances were somewhat at variance to this case. In that situation the crane was operated by persons not covered by any agreement and they were also used to remove and apply roofs of cars. The latter is clearly carmen's work under the rules. In this case, a laborer operated the Pettibone Crane to hoist the car for removal of trucks "to allow carmen to make necessary repairs to said trucks.". The same crane was again operated by a laborer to hoist trucks to allow carmen to put in new wheels. In this case the crane was operated by a member of another craft covered by another labor agreement and carmen were allowed to perform the work reserved to their craft under the rules. Thus, there was no violation of carmen work rules.
The record is replete with evidence that the operation of cranes has not been established as exclusively belonging to the carmen's craft. The operation of a crane is used to lift and move heavy objects and does not constitute the building, maintaining, repair or dismantling of freight or passenger cars. There is no evidence to show that by general practice members of the carmen's craft have been used to operate cranes.
 Form 1 Award No. 10090
 Page 4 Docket No. 9883-T
 2-BN-CM-184
The carrier contention that laborers have operated cranes in the past was not refuted by the Organization. This case is similar to one which the Carmen's organization had on the DM&IR which was decided by Award 9062 as follows:


In the absence of past practice showing the work was done by carmen and also the lack of specific language in the rules reserving such work to members of carmen's craft the claims must be rejected.





                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ~r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September 1984.