Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12078
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11883-T
 91-2-90-2-3
 The Second 'Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the N&W Railway Company violated the current agreements and Memorandum Agreement dated November 3, 1980 when they refused to allow Carmen Welders to perform the welding in the Foundry on a day-to-day basis, if no job is advertised to Locomotive Welders. The Carrier abolished the position of Welder in the Foundry and are using other than Carmen to perform welding duties on a day-to-day basis.

 2. That because of such violation, the Norfolk and Western Railway Company be ordered to allow and assign Carmen Welders to perform welding in the Foundry on a day-to-day basis, if needed or until a Welder's position is bulletined to Locomotive Welders, as per Agreement dated November 3, 1980.

 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.

As Third Party in Interest, the Sheet Metal Workers Association was advised of the pendency of this dispute, and filed a Submission with the Division.

 The Organization contends that Carrier violated the November 3, 1980 Memorandum Agreement when the work of a Locomotive Welder was being performed by a person in the foundry craft. The claim filed on September 18, 1988, is referenced in part hereinafter:
 Form 1 Award No. 12078
 Page 2 Docket No. 11883-T
 91-2-90-2-3
 "On July 29, 1988, it was brought to my attention
 that the Locomotive Welder position in the Foundry
 was abolished; and was being performed by a person in
 the foundry craft. This is in violation of Memor
 andum Agreement signed November 3, 1980. We respec
 tfully ask that if no job is bulletined in the found
 ry that a Carman Welder be used as in the past. At
 this time, we are not asking pay for anyone, we just
 want what the Agreement states."
 By letter dated November 16, 1988, Carrier responded to this claim.
 (In part referenced.)

As the claim progressed on the property the General Chairman further noted the following information: (In part referenced)




Form 1 Award No. 12078
 Page 3 Docket No. 11883-T
 91-2-90-2-3
 It is also understood and agreed that the work of
 each craft shall remain unchanged as pertaining to
 Carmen, Locomotive Welders and Boilermakers, that is,
 the craft that commences a project or repairs, ex
 cluding work in connection with retirement of equip
 ment, shall be utilized on such project or repair
 until its completion."
 In considering this case, the Board concurs with Carrier's position.
 Firstly, there are no persuasive indications that the amount of welding per
 formed in the Foundry Shop warrants the bulletining of a Locomotive Welder's
 position. Secondly, the use of the word "may" in the first paragraph of the
 November 3, 1980 Memorandum Agreement clearly indicates that Carrier has some
 degree of flexibility regarding the use of other employees to perform welding
 work. In the absence of evidence showing that the amount of welding work at
 the Foundry justified the establishment of a Locomotive Welder's position or
 that the word "may" in the Memorandum Agreement meant "will" as construed by
 demonstrable on-situs practice or that Carrier's action breached a specific
 rule or rules in the controlling scheduled Agreement, the Board, of necessity,
 must find for Carrier's position.






Attest: .. _
 Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of July 1991.