Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10876
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10785--T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. Carmen Gus LaScala, Elmer Carlson, Donald Wilmot, David Bringman, Jim Norris, Gene Miller, John Corio, Jr., and Jerry Dirks were deprived of work and wages to which they are entitled when the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company violated the controlling agreement when it improperly assigned train crews to perform carmen's work of coupling air hose and making air tests on August 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and September 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 1983.

 2. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company be ordered to compensate the eight Carmen Claimants in the amount of eight (8) hours pay at the time and one-half rate of pay for each of the following dates amounting to $155.44 for each date claimed as follows:










Form 1 Award No. 10876
 Page 2 Docket No. 10785-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 Jerry Dirks -- August 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, ~r
 31 September 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
 14, 15, and 18

 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.

Carmen G. LaScala, E. Carlson, D. Wilmot, D. Bringman, J. Norris, G. Miller, J. Corio, Jr., and J. Dirks, the Claimants, are employed by the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, the Carrier, at its Sioux City, Iowa, train yard and repair track. In December 1982 and January 1983, the Carrier changed its Sioux City operation because of changes in traffic volume. Pursuant to these changes, Carmen were employed only on the 7:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. shift on Monday through Friday. The Carrier directed that at all
 other times, trainmen, and switchmen were to perform initial terminal air -
 tests.

 On August 8-31 and September 1-18, 1983, the Carrier assigned train crews to couple air hoses and make air tests on trains at Sioux City. The Claimants were available for work on all shifts on all of these dates. The Organization then filed a Claim on the Claimant's behalf, charging that the Carrier had improperly assigned train crews to perform Carmen's work.

 The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the following provisions of the Controlling Agreement:







Form 1 Award No. 10876
 Page 3 Docket No. 10785-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 Rule 29: None but mechanics and apprentices
 regularly employed as such shall do mechanics' work
 as per special rules of each craft.
 At a point where it is proved to the satisfaction
 of the parties to this agreement that more than two
 hours' work is done in any day or night shift in
 any one day, based on the average of one week, a
 mechanic will be employed.
 This does not preclude work being performed by car
 department mechanics-in-charge assigned to outlying
 points at which the force does not exceed five men,
 or in train yards.
 Rule 53: Mechanics work as defined in the special
 rules of each craft will be performed by mechanics,
 regular and helper apprentices to the respective
 crafts.
 Rule 124: Carmen's work shall consist of . . .
 [f]reight and passenger car inspecting, air hose
 coupling in train yards and terminals; mounting,
 dismounting and repairing steam, air and water
 hose; . . . repairing freight cars and tender
 trucks; pipe work in connection with air brake
 equipment on freight cars; . . . and all other work
 generally recognized as carmen's work.
 Article V-Coupling, Inspection and Testing - - from
 September 25, 1964 Agreement:
 (a) In yards or terminals where carmen in the
 service of the carrier operating or servicing the
 train are employed and are on duty in the departure
 yard, coach yard or passenger terminal from which
 trains depart, such inspecting and testing of air
 brakes and appurtenances on trains as required by
 the Carrier in the departure yard, coach yard, or
 passenger terminal and the related coupling of air,
 signal and steam hose incidental to such inspec
 tion, shall be performed by the carmen.
 (b) This rule shall not apply to coupling of
 air hose between locomotive and the first car of an
 outbound train; between the caboose and the last
 car of an outbound train or between the last car in
 a 'doubleover' and the first car standing in the
 track upon which the outbound train is made up.
 Form 1 Award No. 10876
 Page 4 Docket No. 10785-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 Article VI, Section c, d, e, and f of the Mediation
 Agreement, Case (A-9699) adopted December 5, 1975
 revising Article V of the September 1964 Agreement:
 (c) If as of July, 1974, a railroad had
 carmen assigned to a shift at a departure yard,
 coach yard or passenger terminal from which trains
 depart, who performed the work set forth in this
 rule, it may not discontinue the performance of
 such work by carmen on that shift and have
 employees other than carmen perform such work (and
 must restore the performance of such work by carmen
 if discontinued in the interim), unless there is
 not a sufficient amount of such work to justify
 employing a carman.
 (d) If as of December 1, 1975 a railroad has
 a regular practice of using a carman or carmen not
 assigned to a departure yard, coach yard or
 passenger terminal from which trains depart to
 perform all or substantially all of the work set
 forth in this rule during a shift at such yard or
 terminal, it may not discontinue such work during
 that shift unless there is not sufficient work to
 justify employing a carman.
 (e) If as of December 1, 1975 a railroad has
 a regular practice of using a carman not assigned
 to a departure yard, coach yard or passenger
 terminal from which trains depart to perform work
 set forth in this rule during a shift at such yard
 or terminal, and paragraph (d) hereof is inapp
 licable, it may not discontinue all use of a carman
 to perform such work during that shift unless there
 is not sufficient work to justify employing a
 carman.
 (f) Any dispute as to whether or not there is
 sufficient work to justify employing a carman under
 the provisions of this Article shall be handled as
 follows:
 At the request of the General Chairman of Carmen
 the parties will undertake a joint check of the
 work done. If the dispute is not resolved by
 agreement, it shall be handled under the provisions
 of Section 3, Second, of the Railway Labor Act, as
 amended, and pending disposition of the dispute,
 the railroad may proceed with or continue its
 determination".
 Form 1 Award No. 10876
 Page 5 Docket No. 10785-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86

 The Organization initially asserts that the Claimants were all assigned to work at Sioux City, Iowa, at the time the instant claim was initiated; they were not transferred to other locations in Iowa until December 1, 1983, under a Memorandum of Agreement.

 The Organization contends that Rule 124 establishes that air hose coupling in train yards and terminals, such as Sioux City, is Carmen's work. The disputed work, therefore, is contractually awarded to Carmen. The Organization further argues that this work historically has been performed by Carmen at Sioux City. The Organization points out that this assertion is supported by the fact that the Sioux City Trainmaster announced that under the policy change that is the basis for this claim, train crews would be making their own air tests at Sioux City. The Organization contends that there would not have been any such policy change if Carmen had not always performed this work.

 The Organization further contends that Federal Law requires that Carmen perform the disputed work. Part 232.12 of the Initial Terminal Air Brake Test procedure set forth in the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety's Revised 1982 Regulations provides, "Where a carman is to perform the [air brake] inspection and test under existing or future collective bargaining agreement, in those circumstances a carman alone will be considered a qualified person".

 The Organization therefore contends that the Claim should be sustained and that the Claimants should be compensated in the amount of eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate for each date claimed by the individual Claimants.

 The Carrier asserts that in January 1983, it determined that there was not sufficient work to require employing Carmen on the weekends at Sioux City. As a result of this decision, Trainmen and Switchmen were required to couple air hoses and perform initial terminal air tests.

 The Carrier contends that Rule 124 does not mean that every air hose coupling on the Sioux City property must be performed by Carmen. The Carrier points out that under Rule 29, there was not sufficient work to justify employing a Carman; the time needed to perform the disputed work was less than two hours per shift. The Carrier asserts that the joint study of the work, performed at the Organization's request and under Article VI, establishes that there is not sufficient work to justify employing a Carman. The Carrier has provided the results of the study which indicate that at no time on any ship=t was there two hours of Carman's work. The Carrier therefore contends that the Claim should be denied in its entirety.

 This Board has reviewed the evidence and arguments in this case, and it finds that the Claim must be denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 10876
 Page 6 Docket No. 10785-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86

 Although the Organization has presented substantial evidence that the coupling of air hoses and the making of air tests is Carmen's work, the Agreement makes it clear that if the Carrier legitimately determines that there is insufficient work to employ a Carman on a particular shift and the coupling of hoses and air test work is minimal, i.e., less than two hours per shift, then the Carrier may eliminate the Carmen and assign the coupling and testing work to other crafts.

 In this case, the Carrier changed its operation at Sioux City to a five-day week in December 1982. Although traffic requirements necessitated the operation of trains on weekends, the Carrier determined that there was not sufficient work to require the employment of Carmen on Saturdays and Sundays. Hence, Trainmen and Switchmen were required to couple air hoses and perform air tests. The Organization objected; and in August 1983, it requested a joint study of the work performed. That study took place in early September 1983, and the results were that at no time on any shift was there two hours of Carmen's work to be performed.



Hence, although substantial evidence has been submitted to support the Organization's proposition that the work involved is Carmen's work, the Carrier has properly exercised its management right to eliminate the Carmen for lack of work and assign the operations to other employees.

 The Organization bears the burden of proof of a violation in cases of this kind. The only proof in the record shows that less than two hours of Carmen work is needed on each shift. Although the Organization has argued that there is more than two hours needed, the record has no proof in it to support that assertion. The Organization has not met its burden, and therefore this Claim must be denied.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: .-
        Nancy J. De eoF'- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of June 1986.