Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12314
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12340-T
 92-2-91-2-141
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/ Division of TCU
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Norfolk Southern Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Southern Railroad Company violated Rules 42, 148 and Article VI of the November 19, 1986 National Agreement when work belonging to the Carmen's Craft was improperly assigned to employes other than Carmen at Linwood, North Carolina, on Sunday, May 6, 1990.

 2. That accordingly, the Southern Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Carman J. A. Nesbitt five (5) hours pay at the regular Carman's rate in effect on the day the violation took place.

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 As Third Party in Interest, the American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association was advised of the pendency of this dispute and did not file a Submission with the Division.

 On May 21, 1990, the Local Chairman, Spencer, North Carolina, filed a Claim with the Master Mechanic at the Carrier's facilities in Linwood, North Carolina on grounds that the Carrier was in violation of the Agreement when it used a Car Foreman on Sunday, May 6, 1990, to perform an "apply and release" brake test on Train 222 on Track 2 at the receiving yard at Linwood. After the Claim was denied and appealed up to and including the Carrier's highest designated officer it was docketed before the Board for final adjudication.
 Form 1 Award No. 12314
 Page 2 Docket No. 12340-T
 92-2-91-2-141
party, the following represent the facts of the Claim:

When the Carrier used a Foreman to do the brake test on the 46 cars on train 222 on the Sunday in question, according to the Organization, in lieu of calling a Carman, it violated the Agreement.

 The argument presented by the Carrier is that when Train 222 arrived at Spencer Yard and yarded on Track 1 the train crew removed units to pick a "solid block of cars from train 224." All cars remained charged with air and needed no initial, terminal air brake test. When the engineer uncoupled from the inbound train, and after a recoupling was made, discovered that he had lost the signal from the End of Train Device (EDOT) it was necessary to reset it. Once the EDOT was reset the engineer "of his own volition made a set and release." The only work which the Foreman did, according to the Carrier, was to "tell the engineer his brakes were released and the EDOT was blinking."

 According to the Carrier, the setting and releasing function, utilizing the -
 Head and End of Train Devices, is not work exclusively reserved to Carmen on
 system-wide basis. The Carrier did admit that necessary air brake tests and
 air hose couplings were done, but that was not done by the Foreman but by the
 train crew. According to the Carrier, such work was "incidental to handling
 movement of cars of their own trains." The Carrier also argues that the
 relief requested is excessive. Likewise, it argues that various Awards cited
 by the Organization as precedent to support its Claim deal with "initial
 terminal brake tests" and are not, therefore, on point.

 The Board notes that it is true that train crews performed air brake tests and coupled air hoses when the trains were being put together but this work is not being grieved here. Nowhere in the record of the instant case does the Organization bridge this subject. What is being grieved is the right of Carmen only to perform the specific function dealing with the apply and release test. The Carrier states that all the Foreman did was tell the engineer that his brakes were released and the EDOT was blinking. As moving party to the instant case, the Organization does not rebut this rendition of the facts by the Carrier. The question here then is whether the Carrier was obliged to call the Claimant, then on his rest day, to perform this task. As a matter of Agreement Interpretation, which function this Board is charged to perform, the contractual issue is whether the work as described by the Carrier is reserved exclusively to Carmen under the Rules of the Agreement. The Rules at bar state in pertinent part:
 Form 1 Award No. 12314
 Page 3 Docket No. 12340-T
 92-2-91-2-141











































Form 1 Award No. 12314
 Page 4 Docket No. 12340-T
 92-2-91-2-141
 Any rules or. practices which prohibit or restrict
 the use of Car Inspectors from working on cars
 taken from trains for repairs are hereby elimi
 nated. Carmen assigned to make air brake inspec
 tions and test, when not engaged in such work, may
 be assigned to perform any work which they are
 capable of performing and which does not infringe
 on the contractual rights of other employees.
 If there has been a diminution of air brake in
 spection and testing work due to a transfer of the
 work to another location, the remaining air brake
 inspection and testing work cannot be assigned to
 other than carmen except as provided in the Letter
 of Understanding attached hereto. If causes other
 than a transfer of work to another location pre
 cipitate the diminution of carmen's air brake
 inspection and testing work, at the locations
 identified above, nothing in this Article shall
 require the employment of a carman if there is not
 sufficient work of the craft to justify employing a
 carman.* Any dispute as to whether or not there is
 sufficiency of work shall be determined according
 to the following procedures:
 Upon adequate advance request the General Chairman
 of Carmen shall be allowed access to the location
 in question to enable him to determine whether or
 not to request a joint check.
 When requested by the General Chairman the parties
 will undertake a joint check of the work done.
 During such check, there will be no change made in
 the scheduling of trains normally operated nor in
 the work normally assigned for the purpose of
 affecting the joint check.
 If the dispute is not resolved by agreement, it
 shall be handled under the provisions of Section 3,
 Second, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and
 pending disposition of the dispute, the railroad
 may proceed with or continue its determination. If
 the Board determines that the joint check has not
 been taken in accordance with the procedures
 described herein, the Board shall order another
 joint check and have the authority to 1) restore
 abolished positions, 2) award back pay; and 3) take
 other appropriate remedial action.
 Form 1 Award No. 12314
 Page 5 Docket No. 12340-T
 92-2-91-2-141
 The railroad shall have the burden of showing that
 the operations either were not changed or that any
 change that was made was for operational reasons
 and not to effect the joint check."
 (Emphasis added)

 Finally, the Organization cites Rule 42 which is cited here, in pertinent part.







The Organization cites arbitral precedent to support its position in this case. A review of that precedent shows that Second Division Awards 8448, 8602 more recently 11790, all sustained claims but only when it was alleged that the work at bar, which consisted in coupling hoses, inspecting cars and making air brake tests, was done by train crews ostensively involving what the Carrier, in its arguments in the instant case, call initial terminal brake tests, inspections and so on. Although there is evidence that train crews in the instant case did couple hoses and so on that point is not grieved by the Organization. The conclusions of the precedent cited by the Organization, therefore, are not on point with the instant case. Likewise, the exact relationship between Second Division Award 11287 and the case now before the Board is obscure although in that case also the work was done by a train crew and not a Foreman. More pertinent to this case, we believe, is Award 120 of Public Law Board 3858 issued on this property in 1989, to which the Organization offered no dissent. That case dealt with an issue comparable to the one here and that Claim also originated at the Carrier's Linwood, North Carolina, yard. In that case the Board concluded:
 Form 1 Award No. 12314
 Page 6 Docket No. 12340-T
 92-2-91-2-141









Study of the Rules cited in the foregoing warrant concurrence with this conclusion by Award 120 which, because of the parellels between the parties, the issue, and even the location of origin of the Claim, can reasonably be considered under title of res judicata to the instant case. Although application of this principle was not argued by the parties in handling of this Claim on property, Awards issued by various PLBs and the NRAB are matters of public information to be used by this Board in the reasonable formulation of conclusions and framing of decisions on Claims brought before it. The Agreement was not violated.

        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD vow

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
      Nh ncy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1992.