Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12204
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11923-T
 91-2-90-2-30
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
 (Sheet Metal Workers International Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the current controlling agreement when they improperly assigned other than Sheet Metal Worker in violation of Rule No. 1 of the Amtrak Agreement and the 1984 Implementing Agreement between Amtrak and the Washington Terminal Co., and the Organization.

 2. That accordingly, the Carrier be required to compensate Sheet Metal Workers R. Huber and R. W. Ayers eight (8) hours pay at the straight time rate for the dates of June 14,15,16,22,23 and 24, 1988.

 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.

On August 11, 1988, the Local Representative of the Organization filed a Claim on grounds that the Carrier had been in violation of "...Rule #1 and implementing agreement of 1984" when it assigned B&B carpenters to install air conditioning duct work. The work occurred on June 14-16 and 22-24, 1988, at the Carrier's Alexandria, Virginia, ticket station/waiting room. Relief requested was "8 hours at normal hourly rate per day" for the two Claimants named in the Statement of Claim.

 The Claim was denied by the Carrier. Thereafter it was appealed by the Organization up to and including the highest Carrier Officer designated to hear such. Absent resolution of the dispute it was docketed before the Second Division for adjudication. The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes submitted a Third Party Submission for the record and also argued its position at the Referee Hearing.
 Form 1 Award No. 12204
 Page 2 Docket No. 11923-T
 91-2-90-2-30

 The Agreement provisions at stake in this case, according to the Organization, are Rules 1 of the Amtrak Agreement, and Sections 6 and 13 of the 1984 Implementing Agreement between the Organization, Amtrak, and The Washington Terminal Company. These provisions read as follows:











Also at bar in this case is the current Classification of Work Rule for the Organization which is found in Rule 54 of the Agreement. It reads as follows:


Form 1 Award No. 12204
 Page 3 Docket No. 11923-T
 91-2-90-2-30
 brazing, connecting and disconnecting of air,
 water, gas, oil and steam pipes; the operation of
 babbit fires; oxyacetylene, thermit and electric
 welding on work generally recognized, as sheet
 metal workers' work, and all other work generally
 recognized as sheet metal workers' work."

 The Organization argues that in the new seniority district created by the Implementing Agreement only the Lorton Auto Train facility was to be excluded from coverage under Rule 1. The Organization further argues that "...it is quite clear that the: new district was to be considered under the existing agreement" as outline!d in Section 13 of the same Implementing Agreement.

 In its denial of the Claim the Carrier argues that "air conditioning work at Alexandria, Virginia, was not traditionally performed by SMWIA represented employees". In its Third Party Submission the Maintenance of Way Employes argues that there is no evidence that the Sheet Metal Workers "ever performed the work of installing prefabricated air conditioning ducts at the location in question ...."

 The Board must observe that Rule 1 references "work which has been performed traditionally by the craft at (a) location ...." If the Organization argues that "the new district was to be considered under the existing agreement" the more appropriate conclusion would be that it had rights to the Alexandria, Virginia, work only if it had been traditionally performed by that craft at that location. There! is no evidence that such is the case. Likewise, Section 13 of the 1984 Agreement references "work performed by a Craft or Class of employee of WTCo shall continue to be recognized and performed at the new Amtrak's Washington Seniority District ...." The language of this section of the 1984 Agreement lends further credence to the language of Rule 1 that for the craft to have jurisdiction over work in Alexandria, Virginia, it must show evidence that it had traditionally done such work. The record contains no such evidence. For work to "...continue to be recognized and performed" it logically had to be performed in the past. On the basis of the language of the Agreements at bar the Board must conclude that the more reasonable interpretation leads to the conclusion that the instant Claim cannot be sustained.




                            By Order of Second Division


                    00,


Attest:
 . ancy J. r - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of December 1991.

CARRIER MEMBERS' CONCURRING OPINION

TO

AWARD 12204, DOCKET 11923-T

(RE:feree Suntrup)


The Majority thoughtfully considered the

 Statement of Claim before this Board and correctly held:

    "The Agreement prov:_sions at stake in this case, _according to the Organization, are Rules 1 of the Amtrak Agreement, and Sections 6 and 13 of the 1984 Implementing Agreement between the organization, Amtrak, and The


Washington Terminal Company."

 Organization's

 (Emphasis added)

Thereafter, the Majority decision quotes Washington Terminal Company Classification of Work Rule 54. No further reference is made to Rule 54 because the Majority found that notwithstanding the organization's new citation (raised for the first time before the Board as Exhibit "C" to its Submission) the fact of the matter is there is no Rule 54 in the parties' Agreement. The October 1, 1977 Agreement contains only 48 enumerated Rules.


      As a final note, it is significant that with or without the


disputed Rule 54, the Board concluded:

"On the basis of the language of the Agreements at bar the Board must conclude that the more reasonable interpretation leads to the conclusion that the instant Claim cannot be sustained."


M. C. Lesnik

 R. L. Hicks

 JC-^- Yost

 M. W. ing but

/9- -

P. V. Varga