Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11512
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11370-T
 88-2-87-2-2
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.
 (International Association of Machinists and
 ( Aerospace Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 ( (Western Lines)
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Carrier deprived Machinist R. A. Byrns, hereinafter referred to as claimant, of work that was contractually his by improperly assigning the outbound crew the task of uncoupling, coupling, adding, performing airtest, and power testing to locomotives in the Sparks, Nevada Diesel Facility on August 28 and 29, 1985, and September 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14, 1985. Thereby violating the provisions of Rule 33(a), 57 and Article V coupling, inspecting and testing of the September 25, 1964 Agreement.

 2. That the Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant a call of two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes at the Machinist overtime rate as per Rule 11 of the Motive Power and Car Department Agreement for each occurrence.

 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 record of this case reflects that both the United Transportation Union and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers were duly notified of the pendency of this dispute and afforded an opportunity to file a submission, but did not do so.

 This claim involves eleven (11) incidents which occurred in August and September, 1985, in which a locomotive engineer and train crew performed the services necessary to either add or remove diesel units to their road power, turn diesel locomotives on a WYE track, or hostle diesel locomotives from a pit service track to a storage track.
 Form 1 Award No. 11512
 Page 2 Docket No. 11370-T
 88-2-87-2-2
 The Claimant here involved was regularly assigned as a Machinist at
 Carrier's Sparks, Nevada locomotive servicing facility. His tour of duty was
 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and he worked from Monday through Friday. Each of the
 situations which are the basis of this grievance occurred at a time of the day
 or on a day of the week when Claimant was not on duty.
 The Organization argues that Carrier violated Rules 33(a), 57 and
 Memorandum "A" of the M.P.&C. Department Agreement when the operating crew
 members performed the service of adding to and/or cutting off diesel units,
 connecting the M.U. air hoses, performed the air tests and departure inspec
 tions as well as turning locomotives on the WYE track and hostling locomo
 tives. It alleges that this work " - - -has been historically and consistent
 ly performed by the mechanical employees at the Sparks, Nevada yard limits and
 diesel facility."
 On the merits, Carrier contends that the coupling and uncoupling of
 diesel units has not been exclusively reserved to any particular craft of
 employees; that the operating of locomotives is not, and never has been, the
 duty of Machinists and that at all times in question in this case there was no
 Machinist on duty.
 We have carefully reviewed the record of this case; we have studied
 the Rules which have been cited; we have considered the respective arguments
 of the parties. It is clear from this record that the work here involved is
 not expressly stated in either the Assignment of Work Rule (33(a)) or in the

 Classification of Work Rule (57). What we have here is a contention of rry'
 consistent performance by the Machinist craft but no proof of such consistent
 performance. Clearly, when a contention of consistent or exclusive perfor
 mance is made, it must be supported by clear Rule support or by convincing,
 documented evidence of systemwide practice. That has not been done in this
 case. Therefore, the Claims must be and are denied. (Second Division Award
 11475)
 Inasmuch as we have addressed and disposed of this dispute on its
 merits, there is no need to fully address the procedural contentions raised
 by the Carrier in this case. We would, however, remind the parties that the
 provisions of the Rule 38 are clear and mandatory. The time limits and pro
 cedures for the handling of Claims and grievances cut both ways and can well
 stand alone as the cause for dismissal or sustaining of a Claim or grievance.
 (Second Division Award 11227.) Both parties would be well advised to take
 steps to insure themselves that claims communications are both timely made and
 delivery is accomplished.
 A W A R D
Form 1 Award No. 11512
 Page 3 Docket No. 11370-T
 88-2-87-2-2
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division
 Attest:
 Nancy J.,~l~ - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1988.