Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10719
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9894-T
 2-CMSTP&P-EW-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Tedford E. Schoonover when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company violated the current agreement, particularly Rule 71, on Septemer 30, 1981, when is unjustly abolished Electrician Dean Dueppen's position at the Milwaukee Depot and assigned his work to Carmen.

 2. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to reinstate Electrician Dean Dueppen's position at the Milwaukee Depot and compensate Electrician Dueppen at the current rate of pay for eight (8) hours' wages for each date commencing with September 30, 1981 and ending on the date when this violation has been corrected.

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.




Form 1 Award No. 10719
 Page 2 Docket No. 9894-T
 2-CMSTP&P-EW-'86
 structures and all conduit work in connection
 therewith (except outside wiring provided for in
 Rule 72), steam and electric locomotives, passenger
 train and motor cars, electric tractors and trucks;
 include cable splicers, high tension power house
 and substation operators, high tension linemen, and
 all other work properly recognized as electrician's
 work."
 Prior to September 30, 1981, Claimant held the position of Elec-
 trician at the Milwaukee Depot. His position was abolished based on a Carrier
 finding there was no further need for an electrician at the depot due to the
 decline in the number of Amtrak passenger trains serviced there. Claimant
 exercized his seniority as an Electrician at the Milwaukee Diesel Shops.

 The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Labor Agreement by unjustly abolishing Claimant's position and assigning his duties to Carmen.
 It is contended particularly that Carrier violated Rule 71 when it improperly assigned employes of the Carmen craft to perform "electrical inspection, maintenance and repair on locomotive and passenger car equipment at the Milwaukee Depot; that such work should properly have been assigned to Claimant whose position was wrongfully abolished.

 In detailing the work performed prior to abolishment of Claimant's position the Organization stated the following:









In further support of the Claim, the Organization submitted a copy of a journal prepared by Claimant which reviews his duties day-by-day during the period September 8 to 27, 1981, immediately prior to the abolishment of his position. Study of the journal shows his duties were essentially the same from day to day and we quote from the journal for September 16, 1981, a typical date, as follows.
 Form 1 Award No. 10719
 Page 3 Docket No. 9894-T
 2-CMSTP&P-EW-'86











It will be seen from the above that Claimant was preponderantly occupied with the disconnecting and connecting power cables from locomotives and coaches to and from station power supply, turning on and shutting off station power, making inspections, brake tests and releasing the track following completion of such duties. Incidental to his inspection work Claimant reported changing light bulbs, and, in one case he reported taping a damaged seat in a coach. In others he reported malfunctioning toilets in coaches and leaking air conditioning units. In one case he found an air conditioning unit low on freon and switched the unit on manual override.

 Defending against the grievance, Carrier contends the work under Items 1 and 2 above is not exclusively reserved to Electricians and has always been performed by Carmen. Carrier states further that the work under Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 is not being performed at Milwaukee. Rather, it is done by Amtrak forces in Chicago from whence the trains are dispatched. Finally, as to Items 7 and 8, such work is not now, nor ever been performed by Carmen. Carrier states that should the need for maintenance and repair of depot power cables and /or emergency electrical service an Electrician will be called from the Milwaukee Diesel Shops.

 In view of the fact the grievance involves conflicting jurisdictional Claims between the IBEW and the BRCA, information as to the Claim was submitted to the Carmen's Organization for review and comment. A statement of the Carmens' position was submitted in a letter to the Second Division by R. A. Johnson, General Chairman. The essential portion of the statement follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 10719
 Page 4 Docket No. 9894-T
 2-CMSTP&P-EW-`86
 "First of all, we wish to state that the Carmen's
 Organization does not lay claim to any work of an
 electrical nature such as repairing, modifying,
 building or dismantling of machinery or electrical
 devices which properly belong to the Electrical
 Workers.
 We do, however, take exception to the claim of the
 Electrical Workers that the removal of the 480 volt
 cables from locomotives is work which is done by
 them exclusively. This cable is used as a re
 placement to the old steam and signal hoses that
 were connected and disconnected by the Carmen Craft
 and also the replacement cables that connected to
 house power, or as they claim depot power lines, by
 the carmen on duty.
 The subject matter of this dispute has been dis
 cussed with the Local Chairman representing the
 Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and
 Canada and it remains our position that this work
 is not work that has exclusively been performed by
 employes of the Carman's craft at other locations
 on the Milwaukee Road System."
 The Board has made an extensive review and study of the evidence and
 argument submitted by both the IBEW and the Carrier, and also the Carmen's
 evidence. In the first place it is noted that the essential work reserved to
 Electricians by Rule 71 is summarized in the opening lines of the Rule as
 follows:

The balance of the Rule specifies the various kinds of electrical equipment embraced under duties quoted above. The Rule is clear in reserving exclusively to Electricians, a highly skilled craft, the kinds of work requiring their particular kind of expertise. In the situation reviewed here the Claimant's work was limited to servicing locomotives and coaches at the Milwaukee Depot. He pulled cable plugs from the locomotives and connected coaches to the station power supply. Later, when the train was being prepared for departure he reversed the operations, pulled plugs detaching the cables from the station power supply and inserted the plugs to the locomotives. None of such work can reasonably be characterized as requiring the skill of an Electrician as referred to in Rule 71. This is not to detract from the importance of the Claimant's duties but only to place them in proper frame of reference.
 Form 1 Award No. 10719
 Page 5 Docket No. 9894-T

On the contrary, Claimant's work can more properly be characterized as routine service functions, assuredly important and requiring the attention of a responsible and experienced employee, but not the skill of a Journeyman Electrician. Certainly this holds true for his work in pulling plugs and reinserting plugs in transferring power from the locomotive to station power supply and vice versa, and also the occasional changing of light bulbs. Moreover, his inspection work did not include electrical equipment such as defined in the Rule. On the contrary, he checked air conditioning equipment, coach seats and toilets. This is not the kind of work reserved to the Electrician's craft but is commonly performed by Carmen as illustrated when Claimant reported changing a brake shoe. For these reasons we are bound to recognize the merit in the Carrier statement that such work has always been performed by Carmen and is not work exclusively reserved for Electricians. This view is reinforced by the statement from the Carmens' organization referred to above.

 The claim involved here has been the subject of two previous cases involving these same two parties. The first previous case, a 1953 claim as covered in Award 1996, involved the issue wherein the Carrier employed Carmen to do some of the same work as here involved. The only difference was in the location i.e., the former case was in Chicago whereas this one deals with the problem in Milwaukee. In Award 1996 the Claim was denied based on the following reasoning:

        "This record and agreement do not justify our holding that the simple acts of plugging in or detaching electrical lines or cables, the shifing of a Mars signal light from one train to another, and similar acts complained of, which duties have long been performed by carmen as incidental to their car inspection assignments, is exclusively

' the work of electricians. As was the case in Award
        1980, the incidental duties required by carmen in

        the instant case required no repair, no inspection,

        no testing, no tools, no electrical knowledge and

        no electrical training. The simple act of handling

        electrical equipment does not constitute

        maintenance, repair or inspection within the

        contemplation of Rule 71."


The issue was the same in Award 10344, a 1981 Claim involving coach yards in Chicago. The disputed work involved "disconnecting and applying 480 volt cables on (3) three trains 2201, 2203 and 2205 were assigned to two (2) Foremen and were performed by said Foremen on various occasions thereafter." That claim was against using supervisory personnel to perform electrical craft work. In denying the claim the Division cited the earlier Award i.e., 1996 and added the following:
 Form 1 Award No. 10719
 Page 6 Docket No. 9894-T
 2-CMSTP&P-EW-'86
 "Although there is no doubt that Claimant's
 position was abolished and that certain job duties
 which were once performed by him were thereafter
 performed by supervisory employees, Organization
 has only produced evidence to show that said job
 duties consisted of applying and removing the 480
 volt stand-by cables. No evidence whatsoever has
 been adduced by Organization to demonstrate that
 the Supervisors performed any other job tasks which
 were originally performed by Claimant and which
 were exclusively to his classification.
 Apart from the critical concern that the contested
 duties accounted for an extremely small portion of
 Claimant's overall job duties, Organization has
 completely failed to address the issue of the
 decision in Second Division Award 1996 (which,
 interestingly is a case which involves the same
 parties and, for all intents and purposes, the same
 issue as that involved in the instant case). In
 that decision it was concluded that, "(T)he simple
 act of handling electrical equipment does not
 constitute maintenance, repair or inspection within
 the contemplation of Rule 71". The present Board
 is compelled to follow Award 1996 and concludes
 that the applying and removing of the 480 volt
        stand-by cables is not work which is exclusive to -

        the Electricians' classification."


The issue in the instant case is not different than the issues in those two earlier cases cited above. The Organization has not presented any new evidence that detracts in any sense from the reasoning supporting the awards in those cases. Based on the awards in those earlier cases and also our finding that the work reviewed in the instant case is patently not the kind requiring the skill of an Electrician it is our determination that the claim must be denied.

                          AWARD


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest.
      ancy J. vSV- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January 1986.