Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12280
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11960-T
 92-2-90-2-69
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That in violation of the current Agreement, Rules 26, 76 and 98, in particular, the Burlington Northern Railroad Company arbitrarily assigned employees of the various shop crafts at Havre, Montana to perform work of the Electrical Craft.

 2. That accordingly the Burlington Northern Railroad Company should be ordered to compensate furloughed Under 40 Ton Crane Operations Floyd K. Landsiedel, Jerald Amor, Steve Brough, Ardell Tollefson and Karen Vaughn eight (8) hours daily, five (5) days per week, beginning April 1, 1989, and continuing until an Electrical Craft Under 40 ton Crane Operator is reassigned to perform the subject work of the Electrical Craft. All of the Claimants are furloughed from the Havre, Montana facility.

 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 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers was advised of the pendency of this dispute and filed a Submission with the Division.

 On April 1, 1989, Carrier installed a new one-ton overhead crane above stalls 1 and 2 at its Havre Diesel Shop. This crane was attached to a movable bridge which had been installed in 1968 for use with a sand hopper, and is operated from the ground by means of a control panel connected to the
 Form 1 Award No. 12280
 Page 2 Docket No. 11960-T
 92-2-90-2-69

 crane by a cable. The crane is used to position parts for installation and to secure parts during removal in connection with light repairs being performed on locomotives. Carrier has continued to use two-ton overhead cranes for light repair work in stalls 3 through 6, as well as larger cranes for heavy repairs in stalls 7 through 9. The five cranes which service stalls 3 through 9 have been operated exclusively by electricians. Carrier states it has utilized employees of various other crafts (predominantly machinists) to operate the new crane in stalls 1 and 2. According to Carrier, the assignment of the work depends upon the type of repair operation being performed, and generally does not exceed one hour per day.

 In asserting the operation of the new crane is exclusively the work of electricians, the Organization has relied upon Rule 26(g)(2) of the Agreement, which reads, in part, as follows:


































Form 1 Award No. 12280
 Page 3 Docket No. 11960-T
 92-2-90-2-69
 The organization has also cited Rule 76, which reads, in part, as
 follows:
 "ELECTRIC SHOP CRANES


This Board does not approach this dispute without some arbitral history. In Second Division Award 7482, this Division denied a claim involving this Carrier and this Organization, contending that the IBEW Agreement was violated when employees of various crafts operated two 15 ton and one 35 ton overhead cranes that were placed in service at Carrier's Northtown, Minnesota diesel maintenance facility. The Board, in that dispute, noted no regular positions in regard to the three cranes in question had been listed or filled. Rather, the cranes, as they are in the dispute herein, were operated by the various crafts, as needed, in connection with the specialized work. The Board further noted the Organization failed to show it operated such cranes on an exclusive basis throughout the Carrier's system. Finally, the Board held the Organization was required to first seek its remedy through Rule 93, which addresses controversies as to craft jurisdiction and directs such disputes be settled by the contesting organizations. In our Award 7856, which also involved a dispute at Northtown, we followed Award 7482.

 More recently, the Board revisited the issue at Havre, Montana, the location involved herein. In Award 12000, this Division found no violation of the Agreement when Carrier eliminated a Crane Operator position with less than two hours work per day and thereafter had the crane operated by other Electricians in the course of their regular duties. Award 12001, also involving the facility at Havre, addressed the installation of a new 7 1/2 ton crane, which Carrier directed be operated by whichever mechanic was required to do so in the performance of his duties. This Division again cited Award 7482, and found no violation of the Agreement.

 These Awards lead us to conditions which must be satisfied before the Board can find Carrier was required to establish a Crane Operator position. First, there must be evidence to establish the crane is operated at least two hours per day. Second, the Organization must show, either by Rule or systemwide practice, that the work is exclusively reserved to the IBEW. Third, the craft jurisdiction dispute procedures of Rule 93 must be exhausted.
 Form 1 Award No. 12280
 Page 4 Docket No. 11960-T
 92-2-90-2-69

 Applying those tests to the dispute herein, the Board finds Carrier has asserted the crane is used less than one hour on most days and there is no evidence to the contrary. Even though Carrier has acknowledged Electricians have exclusively operated the overhead cranes in stalls 3 through 9 at the Havre Diesel Shop, this is not satisfactory to conclude there is a system-wide practice. Finally, there is no evidence the procedures of Rule 93 have been invoked. For these reasons, we find no violation of the Agreement.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        ncy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of March 1992.