Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10369
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9277-T
 2-B&A-EW-'85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company violated the controlling
 Agreement when they assigned other than Electrical Workers to perform
 work under the scope of the electrical craft Agreement on September 21,,
 1980.
 2. That accordingly, the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company be ordered
 to compensate Electrician J. N. Decker, three (3) hours pay at the
 prevailing rate of straight time pay for September 21, 1980.
 3. That the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company desist in removing the
 work from the electrical craft and assigning the work to other crafts.
 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.


On Sunday, September 21, 1980, a Hostler at Northern Maine Junction replaced a head light on the lead unit of Northbound Freight No. 57. It took him about ten minutes to perform the change. Electrician J. N. Decker, a regular Electrician at the Northern Maine Junction engine house, filed a claim for three hours' pay at the straight time rate, account Carrier assigned other than Electrical Workers to perform work covered under the Scope Rule of the Electricians' Agreement.
Carrier denied the claim, contending that the only employe available to perform the work was a Hostler and that the work was of a de minimus and incidental nature. Employes other than Electricians can perform minor electrical repairs under those conditions.
This Board has reviewed the record and the Agreement language pertinent to this dispute (Rule No. 108, Classification of Electrical Work, and Attachment No. 1 of the December 4, 1969 Memorandum, The Incidental Service Rule) and must conclude the Carrier was not in violation of either Agreement when it directed the Hostler to change the head light under the conditions that existed here.
 Form 1 Award No. 10369
 Page 2 Locket No. 9277-T
 2 -B&A-EW- ' 85





                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: ~iZ5~44~
        Nancy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of April 1985.