Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10516
 SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 10159--T
 2-S GZ-EW- ' 85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rEn dered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Seaboard Coast 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 Claimants, D. R. Sikes and J. F. Bolden, are employed by the Carrier, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company (now known as Seaboard System Railroad), as Electricians at its Waycross, Georgia, shop.
On November 17, 1980, and again on December 22, 1980, a laborer used battery cables to jump start a company truck, in the first instance from a forklift, and in the second from a shop mule. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants, charging that the Carrier deprived the Claimants of their rightful work.
 Form 1 Award No. 10516
 Page 2 Locket No. 10159--T
 2-SCL-EW-185
The Organization contends that jump starting of vehicles is work that is assigned to Electricians under Rule 93 of the controlling Agreement. The Organization asserts that if the Carrier has assigned this work to shop laborers in the past, then these work assignments violated the Agreement.
The Organization also contends that Electricians have both historically and contractually enjoyed the right to perform the cork at issue. The Claimants, further, were available, willing, and able to perform the work. The Organization contends, therefore, that the Carrier wrongfully denied the Claimants their right to perform the work.
Finally, the organization argues that the claim should be sustained, and each Claimant should be awarded two hours and forty minutes of pay at the overtime rate.
The Carrier contends that the work at issue is not reserved exclusively to Electricians under the controlling Agreement. The jump starting of vehicles is rvrk that Management may assign at its discretion; this work historically has been performed by several crafts.
In addition, the Carrier argues that this work does not require special electrical training, so it may be performed by many classifications of employes.
The Carrier also maintains that if the work had been Electricians' work, the Claimants would not be entitled to a call because it was less than ten minutes' work. The Carrier points out that one of the Claimants would not have received additional compensation had he performed the work; the other Claimant was not on duty at the relevant time.
Finally, the Carrier argues that the Organization has introduced no evidence to support its contention that the work is reserved for Electricians. The Carrier asserts that the claim should be denied.
This Board has reviewed all of the evidence in this case, and it finds that there is no evidence that the work in question belongs exclusively to the Electricians. Moreover, the Carrier has presented substantial evidence that other crafts, including machinists, laborers, sheet metal workers, and boilermakers have performed the same work as is claimed in this dispute.



Form 1 Award No. 10516
 Page 3 Docket No. 10159-T
 2-SCL-EW-185





                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J D~er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of September 1985.