Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11172
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10464-T
 2-S00-EW-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Steven Briggs when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Soo Line Railroad Company violated the current agreement on March 26, 1982, when it assigned Machinist W. Paquin to perform electrical work, which should have properly been assigned to Electrician Edward Zinniel.

 2. That the Soo Line Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Electrician Edward Zinniel for two and two-thirds (2-2/3) hours' compensation.

 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 Machinist's Organization was notified as third party in interest and did file a Submission.

 On March 26, 1982, the Carrier assigned Machinist W. Paquin to connect a battery charger to the starting battery on its Power Car No. 800010 at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Edward Zinniel, the Claimant, is an Electrician and was available for call when Paquin performed the work in question.

 The Organization argues that the Carrier violated Rule 86 of the current Agreement by improperly assigning a Machinist to do Electrician work. Rule 86 is quoted in pertinent part below:






Form 1 Award No. 11172
 Page 2 Docket No. 10464-T
 2-S00-EW-'87
 equipment, radio equipment, electric clocks, and
 electric lighting fixtures; winding armatures,
 fields, magnet coils, rotors, transformers and
 starting compensators; inside and outside wiring
 at shops, buildings, yards, and on structures, and
 all conduit work in connection therewith, includ
 ing steam and electric: locomotives, passenger
 trains, motor cars, electric tractors, and trucks;
 cables, cable splicers, high tension power house
 and substation operators, high tension linemen,
 and all other work generally recognized as
 electricians' work.
 2. Men employed as generator attendants, meter
 attendants (not including water service meters),
 and substation attendants who start, stop, oil and
 keep their equipment clean and change and adjust
 brushes for the proper running of their equipment,
 power switchboard operators."
 The Organization feels that the above Rule clearly supports its
 position that the maintenance of batteries and application of battery chargers
 is exclusively Electrical craft work. The work was not incidental to any
 other assignment, and is specifically itemized as an Electrical craft assign
 ment in Classification Work Rule No. 86, quoted in pertinent part below:

The Organization also argues that since the Carrier did not provide a reason for denial of the Claim within 60 days of its inception, the Claim was not properly processed according to the meaning of Article V of the August 21, 1954, Agreement:














Form 1 Award No. 11172
 Page 3 Docket No. 10464-T
 2-S00-EW-'87

 The Carrier differentiates between the "old" Rule 86 and the "new" Work Classification Rule No. 86, noting that the latter did not become effective until April, 1982, and the incident giving rise to this Claim took place in March, 1982. It adds that the old Rule 86 does not reserve battery chargers to the Electrical craft. The Carrier also asserts that under a 1949 Understanding, the resolution of jurisdictional disputes is beyond the scope of this Board's authority. It maintains as well that the work in question took less than five minutes, and was indeed incidental to the servicing of the motor car by Machinist Paquin. Finally, the Carrier asserts that it did provide a timely reason for denial of the Claim.

 With regard to the Organization's procedural argument, we find that the Carrier was in compliance with Article V of the National Agreement dated August 21, 1954. The Claim was filed on March 21, 1982; the Carrier's original denial letter was dated May 20, 1982, falling within the 60-day time limit. Furthermore, the Carrier's letter specifies that the Claim was denied because it was "not in accordance with schedule of rules." In accordance with prior decisions of this Board (For example, Second Division Award No. 4556), we find that such language meets the requirements of Article V, and therefore deny the Organization's request that the Claim be allowed on a procedural point.

 We also find no evidence in the record to substantiate the Organization's argument that the new Work Classification Rule No. 86 applies to this case. Rather, it appears from the evidence presented that the new Rule was not yet in effect at the time of the incident giving rise to the instant Claim. Thus, the matter before us must be resolved under the terms of the "old" Rule 86. That Rule does not specifically mention battery chargers in its listing of work reserved to the Electrical craft. Moreover, we find no evidence that such work has hisr_orically belonged to the Electrical craft.

 We also agree with the Carrier's argument that the work in question was incidental to the work being performed by Machinist Paquin. Charging the battery took less than five minutes and required no special skill. Moreover, it would be unduly burdensome on an employer to require that an Electrician be called out for just a few minutes work involving no special electrical skills.

 Finally, this Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to resolve the instant dispute on its merivs.



Attest:
        Nancy J. v - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1987.