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.
Claimants are twenty-three machinists employed by Carrier, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, at Iselin Shop, Jackson, Tennessee. Claimants allege that the Carrier violated the Schedule Agreement applicable on the Southern Region of the former Gulf, Mohile and Ohio Railroad when they allowed Maintenance of Way employees to perform work on the Burro Crane PR-37 during the period February 2 through February 9, 1932. Claimants allege that the Maintenance of Way employees were performing work that is properly within the machinists' classification and should have been assigned to machinists. Claimants are seeking eighty-seven hours of pay at one and one-half times the pro rata rate to be equally divided among themselves.
The Organization's position is that the Carrier violated Rules 32, 33, 40, 102, 110, 120, 122, and 123 of the controlling agreement (former GM&O Southern Region) when it assigned Maintenance of Way employees to perform machinists' classification work on the Burro Crane PR-37 at the Iselin Shop during the period February 2 to February 9, 1982.
The Organization alleges that the work performed on the Burro Crane PR-37, namely, the renewing of air brake seals to the brake system of the crane, involved disassemhlement of gears and shafts of the crane, which is exclusively machinists' work performed in the Maintenance of Equipment Iselin Shop where machinists hold seniority.
The Rules of the "Southern Region" agreement in effect between the Carrier and the: Organization effective January 1941, as currently amended, involved in this disptue are as follows:
The Organization contends that the Burro Crane PR-37 is roadway machinery and/or a traveling crane (kule 110) and that any mechanical repairs made thereto should he assigned to the machinists craft employees who hold seniority at the point where the work is performed.
They Organization's position is that the Burro Crane PR-37 was repaired in the Maintenance of Equipment Shop tinder the jurisdiction and control of the Maintenance of Equipment Department, and machinists have historically performed work on Maintenance of Way equipment when skich work is performed in a Maintenance of Equipment Shop. The Organization alleged that the Burro Crane PR-37 was at the Iselin Shop on only one occasion prior to February 1982 and that the repairs made on it at that time were done exclusively by machinists regularly assigned at the Iselin Shop.
Furthermore, the Organization stated that the Maintenance of Way employees who worked on the Burro Crane PR-37 were not equipped with the proper tools and equipment to do the job and that Claimants advised the machinists and Iselin Shop supervisors that they had never performed this type of work before and did not know how to disassemble the crane. Supervisors were required to instruct the Maintenance of Way employees how to perform the work.
Finally, the organization alleges that because the crane -was repaired in a Maintenance of Equipment Shop, under the jurisdiction and control of the Maintenance of Equipment Department, the work was subject to the applicable Scope Rule and Classitication of Work Rules of the Agreement that controls the assignment of work on equipment of any type when such work is performed in and tinder the jurisdiction of the maintenance of equipment employees and not to the Maintenance of Way employees. Form 1 Award No. 10415
The Carrier's position is that the Classification of Work Rule was not violated as the machinists in the Mechanical Department do not have an exclusive right to repair Maintenance of Way equipment.
The Carrier argues that this Board has held that an organization in cases of this kind has the burden of proof to demonstrate that certain work has been exclusively performed by a certain craft, historically, customarily, and systemwide. The Carrier contends that the Organization has not only failed to show that its members have exclusively performed the work, but that the Organization has not even provided evidence that it ever made repairs on the Burro Crane PR-37 in tile past. Moreover, the Carrier states that it has shown that maintenance of way work equipment repairmen were specifically trained to repair the equipment and pad performed the repairs since Burro Crane PR-37's have been used by the Carrier.
Moreover, the Carrier argues that the location where the work is performed is irrelevant. The Carrier states that the parties have not agreed that machinists should repair all equipment located in the Maintenance of Equipment Shop.
Tho Carrier contends that the Organization has no legitimate claim to the work and that the claim should he denied.
Vie Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes filed a third-party response to the claim, alleging that the work in duestion falls within the ,juris(4iction of the Carrier's employees in the Work Equipment Subdepartment and that such work has been historically and exclusively performed by such employees and is reserved to them Lulder i;ule 2. Rule 2 state::, in pertinent part, as follows:
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case, and it finds that the burden of proof rests ontirely upon the Organization to demonstrate that it is entitled to the work in question. (See Second Division Award 1()(176.) Moreover, in order to prevail in a case of this kind, an Organization must show by strong and conclusive evidence that it is entitled to the work by specific rule language or by virtue of an exclusive systemwide past practice. (See Second Division Awards 702() and 10091.)
In the case at hand, the Organization has been unable to show that it had exclusively repaired Burro Crane PR-37's on behalf of the Carrier on a systemwide basis. The fact that the work was performed in the pit at the Form 1 Page 5