Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11897
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11705-T
 90-2-88-2-199
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 (Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the current controlling agreement, Rule 71 in particular, when they improperly assigned other than Sheet Metal Workers to install light gauge sheet metal directive signs in the West Burlington Diesel Repair Facility on September 16, 17, 20, 21 and 24, 1987.

 2. That accordingly, the Carrier be required to compensate Sheet Metal Workers D. Osborne and R. Hunt, in the amount of sixty-eight (68) hours at the prevailing overtime rate, to be divided equally between the Claimants.

 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 pivotal question in this dispute is whether Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement, particularly Rule 71 when forces other than Sheet Metal Workers installed light gauge sheet metal directive signs in the West Burlington, Iowa Diesel facility on September 16, 17, 20, 21 and 24, 1987. It was the Organization's position that Rule 71 (Classification of Work) clearly reserved this work to the Sheet-Metal Workers employed at this facility and moreover, prior to this instance, said type of work was performed by Sheet Metal Workers at West Burlington. Letters were submitted by Sheet Metal Workers attesting to such assignments.

 As a party in interest, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes filed a submission asserting that said work was customarily assigned to Maintenance of Way forces. It maintained that Rules 1, 55 and the Note to Rule 55 of the BMWE Agreement established that the work was encompassed within the Scope of the BMWE Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No: 11897
 Page 2 Docket No. 11705-T
 90-2-88-2-199

 Carrier contended that the plain meaning of the language of Rule 71 VW
 certainly does not support the conclusion that the hanging of signs accrues
 exclusively to Sheet Metal Workers. It argued that Rule 71 must be construed
 within the context of the skills, training and experience which the negotiating
 parties contemplated were required of the affected journeymen. Specifically, it
 maintained that hanging signs was work requiring no skill or training to perform
 and thus said work could not reasonably belong to any one craft. Further, it
 observed that contrary to the Organization's contention that Sheet Metal Workers
 routinely performed this work in and around the West Burlington Diesel facility,
 the statements of several Shop Superintendents show that the hanging and mount=
 ing of such signs was never performed by any one craft.
 In reviewing this case, we concur with Carrier's position. Firstly,
 the language of Rule 71 does not explicitly reserve the disputed work to the
 Sheet Metal Workers Craft. The signs were cut out of metal by Sheet Metal
 Workers, but were painted by members of the Carmen's Craft and hung in place by
 members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Craft, though some Sheet Metal
 Workers participated in the latter work. More important, however, we have no
 precedent adjudicated cases dealing with identical work claims. To be sure,
 Second Division Award 6544 is persuasive and thoughtful, but it is a distin
 guishable dispute. More painstaking interpretative analysis is needed where
 language clarity is lacking. Secondly, the Organization has not demonstrated
 that hanging up such signs was exclusively performed by Sheet Metal Workers on a
 system wide basis. There are indications that members of the craft performed
 this work at the West Burlington facility, but there are also persuasive in-

 dications that other crafts performed this identical work.
 Accordingly, in the absence of clear unambiguous rule language, on

 point precedent cases and/or demonstration of system wide past practice, the
 Board has no basis for sustaining the Organization's Claim. There is not enough
 evidence in the record to support the Claim.
 A W A R D




Attest:
        Nancy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of July 1990.
                  LABOR MEMBERS' DISSENT

                  TO

                  AWARD 11897, DOCKET 11705-T


The findings of the wajority of the Board in this dispute are most grievously in error. The findiags ~mve not only rejec-Lo-d the accepted past practice on the property but In addition have totally ignored and forever damaged the intent and appreciation of the literal contractual language contained in the Organization';; Class i f icat ion of Work 'pule.

The dispute involved the erecting of light gauge sheet metal signs in the Maintenance of Equipment Department by other than those ern;ployees represouted by the S'ne:t %Ietal `.Yorkers' International Association.

As set forth to Lie Organization's presentation, the work had been previously performed by Sheet Metal Workers at the West 3urlington Facility. This was.supported by signed, sworn and notarized statements of fact provided by the employees who had_ prior to the rise of the violation, performed the work.


      The 1 i teral 1 a~uage of the Sheet Metal Workers' Class--

                    0


ification of Work 'Rule states that the Organi zat ion' S -_spl;)yae;>

 will perform the work of

          . . . huildin-Y, erecting, assembling, Installing, dismantling and maintaining parts made of sheet copper, brass, tin, zinc, light metal, lead, black, planished, pickled and galvanized iron of 10 gauge and lighter . . . (Emphasis added)


      As set forth In the Award rendered in this dispute, the:


riajority agrees that the signs vere ,properly fabricated by Sheet
 Dissent to ,k-.vdrd 1 1897

 Pale 2

Metal "Norkers, however, the majority has attempted to rainove the exclusive right of the employees here involved of the erectly .)f lig'it gauJe sheet metal parts. This erroneous position stands 31a.i~ in the face of past division history and interpretations ra,;arain, literal contractual langllagt,31.

The ;majority's o?inion rNg:~rdiy the applicability of Second Division Award 6544 and the lack of adjudicated precedent cases is additionally without merit. Award 6544 clearly dealt with light gauge sheet :metal ;)arts as those parts are defined in the Sheet Metal Workers' Classification of Work Rule. In the inst:int dispute, the sheet metal parts additionally r:3q:aird t'm u,~i of tools to co-molete the here involved assignment. This fact does not differentiate from Award "0544 but serves to bolster the Organization's position in the claim.

The majority's refusal to accept the facts set forth by the Organization regarding prior ,)rac tice at Cie ra::il Ity and the excllzstw~-- contractual language contained in the agreement provisions renders this yl.vard arroaeous and accordingly, does not set precedent. We most vigorously dissent to Award 11897 and the findings contained t'ierNia.


Labor Member
Labor Mem~sr

'IV


Labor NI b r
Lab Member
Labor Member
Labor Member