Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12217
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12091
 91-2-90-2-199
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

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


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (hereinafter referred to as "carrier") violated the service rights of Carmen H. C. Madden and D. B. Reynolds (hereinafter referred to as "claimants") and the provisions of Rules 32 and 154 of the Controlling Agreement when on April 20, 1988 the carrier utilized the services of persons other than. mechanics to do mechanic's work.

 2. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to be compensated for forty (40) hours each at the applicable Carmen's straight time rate for said violation.

 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.

At its facility at Raceland, Kentucky, the Carrier undertook in early, 1988 to develop a device to exert pressure on gondola floors for the purpose of assisting in spot welding during car repair. Two prototypes of the "gigs" were assembled by the Claimants in the Carrier's facility. According to the Carrier, the device was "somewhat effective" but did not produce sufficient pressure. As a result, the Carrier turned to an outside firm to manufacture and deliver a more efficient version of the device.
 Form 1 Award No. 12217
 Page 2 Docket No. 12091
 91-2-90-2-199

 By contrast, the Organization contends that the device provided by the outside firm was "identical" to that previously prepared by the Claimants.

 The Board finds that the Organization has not sufficiently met its burden of proof to show that the "gig" provided by the outside contractor was identical to those made by the Claimants on an experimental basis. As a result, there is clearly no proof that the manufacture of such devices accrues exclusively to the Carman craft. Directly on point are Awards 8 and 35 of of Public Law Board 3781, which concern decisions to purchase equipment rather than manufacture them by Carrier forces.

 With this conclusion, the Board need not review the Carrier's jurisdictional argument that the dispute is improperly before the Board but, rather, should be addressed by Special Board of Adjustment No. 570.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: ,
        1Pancy J.~ey = Executive Secretary


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