Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10094
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9074-T
 2-SOO-CM-184
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Soo Line 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.


The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, a third party at interest, was notified of this dispute and made a response.
The issue here is work on fabrication of three cross ties ("I" beams) to be used in connection with the repair of freight cars. The Carrier assigned this work to Boilermakers, and it is the Organization's contention that this work should have been performed by Carmen.
The record shows that cross ties of this variety are normally carried as a stock item, not requiring fabrication by either craft. Both the Carmen and the Boilermakers offer evidence that such work has been performed by each of their crafts and that it is covered by their classification of work rules. The Carmen view this work as part of their car repair work, while the Boilermakers view this as metal fabrication within their jurisdiction.
The underlying question is whether this constitutes a jurisdictional dispute or whether this is simply an erroneous assignment of work by the Carrier. On this point, Award No. 7200 states:
 Form 1 Award No. 10094
 Page 2 Docket No. 9074-T
 2-SOO-CM-184
 "A jurisdictional dispute normally deals with the introduction of a
 new operation or procedure or a continuing dispute between two crafts
 where classification of work rules either do not refer specifically
 to the work in question or where there is reasonable grounds to show
 'that two or more rules cover the work involved. A single instance of
 assignment of work to one craft, where it is clearly shown that it
 belongs to another craft, can hardly be relegated to the jurisdictional
 dispute procedure. Rather, such specific and provable misassignment
 may surely yield to the regular dispute procedure and/or resolution
 by this Board. To hold otherwise would mean that a Carrier could
 assign any work at any time to any craft without being held responsible
 for damages of such error."
Contrary to the circumstances involved in Award No. 7200, the Board finds here no clearcut misassignment. As noted above, cross bars are normally carried as a stock item. When fabrication is required, the record shows a genuine and well reasoned disagreement between the two crafts as to proper assignment of the work.
In view of this, the Board is compelled to yield to the agreement made by the parties as to the resolution of such disputes by the crafts themselves. (An attempt to do so in this instance was initiated by the Carmen with the Boilermakers, but without mutual resolution.) The February 15, 1940 Agreement states as follows:




It is this means of dispute resolution which the parties have chosen, and the Board is thus without jurisdiction.







                                                            Attest: low

        Nanc Dever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1984.