Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11543
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11205-7C
 88-2-86-2-5
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
 (Sheet Metal Workers International Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard System Railroad

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. Carrier violated Rules 26(a) and 85 of controlling Agreement, also Letter of Understanding dated December 20, 1967.

 2. Claim in behalf of Sheet Metal Workers E. H. Parker, August 23, 1984, D. K. Batten - September 5, 1984, E. D. Roberts - September 10, 1984 and G. 0. Cameron, September il, 1984 for 2 hours and 40 minutes, at time and one-half rate of pay each.

 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.

In this Claim, the Organization asserts that the act of removing diode covers which provide insulating covers for the high voltage diode bank and leads on G. E. Locomotives, is work that accrues to its craft. In so asserting, it mainly relies upon its construction of Rules 26 and 85 and the Letter of Understanding, dated December 20, 1967.

 The Carrier essentially maintains that the covers are made from fiberglass material, and that the work does not come under the classification of work for Sheet Metal Workers. The Carrier observed that both Electrician and Sheet Metal Workers historically have removed these covers from EMD and G.E. Locomotives at the Waycross Shops, Georgia, the site where the dispute arose.

 Pursuant to Section 3, First (j) of the RLA, as amended, notice given to the Electrical Workers of this Claim as a third party in interest. A response has been received.
 Form 1 Award No. 11543
 Page 2 Docket No. 11205-T
 88-2-86-2-5

 We have carefully reviewed the lengthy record assembled in this Claim. From this review, we conclude that the Work Rule does not list the type work claimed. Accordingly, the Organization must establish exclusivity to claim the work. The record shows that in this case we have a team of various shop craft employees, and that the Electricians, who are a part of the makeup of the team, have also performed the work claimed. Therefore, based on the record developed on the property, the Claim is denied.




                              By Order of Second Division


Attest.
            J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1988.