Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11282
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10962-T
 2-SP-SMW-187
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee T. Page Sharp when award was rendered.
 (Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Carrier violated Rules 33 and 77 of the current controlling Motive Power and Car Department Agreement.

 2. That employees of the Maintenance of Way Department were wrongfully assigned to perform work which has historically been assigned to employees of the Sheet Metal Workers Craft working in the Shop Maintenance Gang.

 3. That claimants F. Sanders, R. Flores, J. Toney, J. Lee, J. McLucas, E. Galli, F. Mayberry, M. Mitts, J. DeFrisco and C. Davies be compensated by the Carrier for 280 hours each at their straight time rates and for 56 hours each at their overtime rates of pay.

 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 Carrier constructed a new facility, a painting facility for diesel locomotives, at the Sacramento Locomotive Works. The facility was approximately one hundred and fifty yards long and was divided into four areas; a prep area, a blast area, a paint and detail area, and an office area.

 Certain installation and assembly functions were assigned to Carrier's Maintenance of Way forces. Some of this work consisted of the installation of water lines throughout the building, specifically the installation of pipes for conveying compressed air between five air compressors located in the building and storage tanks located outside the building.

 As third party in interest, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes was advised of the pendency of this case, and filed a Submission.
 Form 1 Award No. 11282
 Page 2 Docket No. 10962-T
 2-SP-SMW-'87
forces. The alleged contractual violation is of Rules 33 and 77. These Rules
 read:
 "ASSIGNMENT OF WORK



          Sheet metal workers' work shall consist of tinning,

          coppersmithing and pipefitting in shops, yards and

          buildings (except work performed by Maintenance of

          Way Department employes) and on passenger train

          cars and engines of all kinds; the building, erect

          ing, assembling, installing, dismantling and main

          taining parts made of sheet copper, brass, tin,

          zinc, white metal, lead, black, planished, pickled

          and galvanized iron of 10 gauge and lighter,

          including brazing, soldering, tinning, leading, and _,err

          babbiting, the bending, fitting, cutting, thread

          ing, grazing, connecting and disconnecting of air,

          water, gas, oil and steam pipes; operating punch

          presses and power brake machines, the operation of

          babbit fires; oxyacetylene, thermit and electrical

          welding on work generally recognized as sheet metal

          workers' work, and all other work generally recog

          nized as sheet metal workers' work. Shipyard sheet

          metal workers' work."


On the property a procedural violation was alleged. The Organization claimed that the time limits of the appropriate Rule had been violated because the Carrier had answered on the sixty first day, a period that counted the day of the service of the Claim. While there is much arbitral authority on the subject, this Board cannot consider them. It has long been held that a Claim must specifically state violations of specific Rules. The Claim here does not refer to the alleged violation, thus it cannot be addressed.

 The Carrier addressed the Claim by responding in a letter of May 18, 1984, stating in pertinent part:
 Form 1 Award No. 11282
 Page 3 Docket No. 10962-T
 2-SP-SMW-'87
 "Investigation does not substantiate your
 claim. Maintenance of Way has the responsibility
 to pipe from the source of air and water to the
 service valve. Shop crafts have the responsibility
 from the service valve only. Valves which you
 refer to as service valves are actually balancing
 valves. These valves were installed to balance the
 flow of air and water and to enable isolation of a
 compressor without affecting the complex as a
 whole."

 This explanation was met by a communication from the Local Chairman stating that the contention was in error.

 Numerous settlements of Claims were put in the record and said to be determinative of the jurisdictional issue. This Board rejects this supposition. If Boards were to utilize settlements to determine present controversies, the settlement process would be irrevocably dampened.

 Several affidavits, all reading basically alike, were submitted from long-time Sheet Metal Workers. These say:

              "I have been employed by the Southern Pacific

          Railroad as a Sheet Metal Worker at the Sacramento

          Shop (Sacramento Locomotive Works) for years.

          During this period of time I have been assigned to

          the Shop Maintenance Gang commonly referred to as

          the 'Repair Gang', for years. Many times as

          part of my assigned duties, I have performed all

          pipe work connected to the Air Compressors located

          at the Steam Plant Building, at the Air Room (Air

          Brake Shop) and at the former Car Shop #9 Area...


We interpret these to mean that the individual is not claiming he performed all pipe work, meaning total, because all of these affidavits say the same. The only logical meaning is that the individual has performed all types of pipe work at the points mentioned. We do not find these affidavits determinative as described below.

        Although some Awards have found that Rule 77 explicitly gives the

pipe work to the Sheet Metal Worker, we do not so read the Rule. The first
 part of sentence one creates some ambiguity when it states "Sheet metal work
 ers' work shall consist of . . . pipefitting in shops, yards and buildings
 (except work performed by Maintenance of Way Department employes) . . .' The
 Rule encompasses the seeds of disputes between these two crafts.
 Form 1 Award No. 11282
 Page 4 Docket No. 10962-T
 2-SP-SMW-'87

 Because of the possibility of overlap of work, many Awards have held that for either craft to claim absolute right to the work, it must prove exclusivity. The conflicting statements as to the nature of the valves do not resolve the matter for us. Neither do the statements from the employees stating that they have done the work. No contention is made from the statements that the Sheet Metal Workers had exclusively performed the work.

 The burden of proof on the party alleging a Rule violation rests solely with that party. The proof must be presented to the Board in a clear, concise manner that will allow us to make a reasoned judgment. This is especially true in cases as this where the evidence concerns technical matters whereby slight differences can delineate jurisdictional work lines. The proof has not been presented to us in such a manner, thus we are unable to make the reasoned judgment for which we are empaneled. We find that the Organization has not met its burden of proof.

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:

        Nancy J. e - Executive Secretary ·,r#


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of July 1987.