CORRECTED
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 Form 1 SECOND DIVISION Award No. 12486
 Docket No. 12294
 92-2-91-2-84



(Division of TCU
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly
 (the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. That the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (hereinafter referred to as "carrier") violated the service rights of Painter K. Estep (hereinafter referred to as "claimant") and the provisions of Rule 11, 32 and 154 of the controlling agreement when on April 22, 1989 the carrier ignored the overtime board and worked ten (10) employes from an outside concern to prepare the new paint facility for painting in violation of the aforementioned agreement rate.


2. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to be compensated for twelve (12) hours at the applicable time and one-half 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 employe 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.

Form 1 Award No. 12486
 Page 2 Docket No. 12294
 92-2-91-2-84 ,_fir

On May 15, 1989, a Claim was filed by the Local Chairman on behalf of Claimant at the Carrier's Raceland Car Shop, Russell, Kentucky. Allegation was that the Carrier violated Rules 11, 32, and 154 of the Agreement when it hired an outside contractor "...on second shift to prepare the new paint Booth for painting" on April 22, 1989. According to the Claim, it took ten men working twelve hours each to do the work. The Claim was later changed to include twenty Painters of the Carmen craft who were working at Raceland.


In denying the original Claim the Carrier states that it is true that a contractor by the name of Mobile Pressure Cleaning had been hired to remove the overspray on the Raceland Shop spray booth and that this company had done this work for the Carrier on two previous occasions. According to the Carrier, the work at bar needs equipment which the Carrier does not possess. This is a specialized highway truck with mounted equipment which produces a water blast of "...ten thousand pounds per square inch." After the overspray was removed on April 22, 1992, according to the Carrier, Carmen Painters "...recoated the paint booth with W. B. Filmite."














Form 1 Award No. 12486
 Page 3 Docket No. 12294
 92-2-91-2-84
 Rule 154--(a)
 Carmen's work shall consist of building,
 maintaining, dismantling (except all-wood
 freight-train cars), painting, upholstering
 and inspecting all passenger and freight cars,
 both wood and steel, planing mill, cabinet and
 bench carpenter work, pattern and flask making
 and all other carpenter work in shops and
 yards, except work generally recognized as
 bridge and building department work: carmen's
 work in building and repairing motor cars,
 lever cars, hand cars and station trucks;
 building, repairing and removing and applying
 locomotive cabs, pilots, pilot beams, running
 boards, foot and headlight boards, tender
 frames and trucks; pipe and inspection work in
 connection with air brake equipment on freight
 cars: applying patented metal roofing;
 operating punches and shears doing shaping and
 forming; work done with hand forges and
 heating torches in connection with carmen's
 work: painting with brushes, varnishing,
 surfacing, decorating, lettering, cutting of
 stencils and removing paint (not including use
 of sand blast machine or removing in vats);
 all other work generally recognized as
 painters' work under the supervision of the
 locomotive and car departments, except the
 application of blacking to fire and smoke
 boxes of locomotives in engine houses; joint
 car inspectors, car inspectors, safety
 applicance and train car repairers;
 oxyacetylene, thermit and electric welding on
 work generally recognized as carmen's work;
 and all other work generally recognized as
 carmen's work.
 (b) It is understood that present
 practice in the performance of work between
 the carmen and boilermakers will continue.
 UNDERSTANDING--Negotiated February 9-22, 1922.
 Paint spraying machines will be operated
 by painters unless this practice is changed by
 some ruling or interpretation from the Labor
 Board."
 Form 1 Award No. 12486
 Page 4 Docket No. 12294

In response to the Carrier's denial at first level of handling, the Local Chairman states the following:


          "Contrary to your statement the Claimant could and should have performed the work in question. The Carrier has at its disposal suitable methods of removing the build-up of paint overspray from the paint booth (sandblasting, scraping, chemical removal) besides the use of high pressure water blasting. Furthermore, the Carrier has at its disposal the ability to procure the so-called 'specialized' water blast equipment at a considerably cheaper cost than sub-contracting this work."


The Organization further argues that removal of overspray paint
 from paint booths is and always has been recognized as work covered
 under the Classification of Work Rule that it normally and
 traditionally was performed by Painters and this is the practice
 throughout the system.
 The Carrier's response to this line of argument by the
 organization is that the contractor did not "prepare" the Paint
 Booth for painting, but it cleaned the Paint Booth. The Carrier
 states the following:
 "The purpose of the work performed by Mobile
 was not to prepare the paint booth for
 painting, it was to clean the walls and
 ceiling of the paint booth, not because it
 needed painting, but because it needed
 cleaning. As cars are painted automatically
 in the paint booth the overspray accumulates
 on the walls andceiling and if not removed,
 the weight of the accumulation would cause it
 to drop onto and ruin the finish of cars being
 painted below. This cleaning process is not
 work which its painters have done in the past,
 and the carrier does not possess the necessary
 equipment to do the cleaning. As Mr. Brigman
 advised the Local Chairman, the cleaning
 requires specialized equipment designed to
 blast with a pressure of ten thousand pounds
 per square inch. In addition, Mobile used
 specialized equipment, which the Carrier does
 not possess, which is necessary to collect the
 used water with the overspray contaminants and
 to dispose of it properly as required by the

 Kentucky Environmental Protection Agency. ,___r
 Form 1 Award No. 12486
 Page 5 Docket No. 12294
 92-2-91-2-84
 The necessity of utilizing Mobile was not
 because the paint booth needed painting, it
 was because it needed cleaning. After the
 paint booth had been water blasted, a coating,
 called 'Filmite' is applied to the walls and
 ceiling by Carrier's painters. The coating
 causes the overspray to be more easily removed
 by water blasting. Thus, it is the necessity
 to clean the walls and ceiling which causes
 the subsequent application of the coating. If
 it were not necessary to clean the paint
 booth, the Filmite would not need to be
 replaced.
 The Organization's contention that the Carrier
 has other means of removing the overspray from
 the paint booth, such as (sandblasting,
 scraping, chemical removal), is ill-founded
 and not supported by knowledge of the paint
 facility and its operation. The Carrier
 invested about $5 million to construct a
 modern Paint Shop at Raceland. The design
 concept did not include shutting down the
 painting process for the extraordinary length
 of time it would take to employ the antiquated
 method of erecting scaffolding and placing men
 thereon to scrape and chisel the overspray by
 hand. It was designed to avoid the damage to
 the walls and ceiling of the paint booth that
 sand blasting would cause; and it was designed
 to avoid the use of chemicals, which can
 introduce new problems and expense relating to
 safety and to proper disposal methods.
 The methods suggested by your organization
 would, understandably, be more labor
 intensive; but in the exercise of its right to
 manage its business prudently, the Carrier
 does not have to employ more expensive
 procedures when less expensive ones are
 available so long as it is not restricted by
 the Agreement with its employees."

 The issue before the Board is whether the operant Rules cited by the Organization cover the cleaning of the paint booth at Raceland Shop, and more specifically, whether they cover the cleaning of the technologically new type of booth which the Carrier installed at large expense which needed a special process in order to be prepared for the application of Filmite by the craft's Painters.
 Form 1 Award No. 12486
 Page 6 Docket No. 12294
 92-2-91-2-84
 The Organization argues that preparing paint booths had been
 traditionally done by the craft throughout the system. That is not
 contested by the Carrier. What the Carrier contests is that the
 new type of paint booth which it installed at Raceland had never
 been "cleaned" by this craft and that to do so by the older methods
 of sandblasting, scraping or chemical removal would not only be
 potentially physically destructive to the new equipment, but that
 the time it would take such labor intensive procedures to be used
 would be unnecessary downtime of expensive equipment. The
 argument, and distinction, that the Carrier makes between
 "preparing" and "cleaning" the new booth is neither addressed nor
 answered by the Organization on property. The Carrier argues that
 the craft still did the "preparing" of the paint booth, as the
 Claim requests, by applying Filmite.
 Do the Rules cited by the Organization require the carrier to
 use this craft to "clean" the new booth (in addition to applying
 the Filmite preparation), with additional, expensive equipment
 which it would have to purchase or lease, and then train members of
 the craft to use such equipment which, practically speaking, would
 be used infrequently? Examination of the language of the Rules at
 bar indicates that, if there is a contractual imperative which
 requires the Carrier to teach this craft to use -new machinery to

 clean the new booths it would be found in Rule 154. That Rule ,__r
 explicitly addresses the painting of passenger and freight cars,
 painting with brushes, varnishing, surfacing, decorating and so on,
 and it states that Carmen shall do "...all other work
 generally recognized as painters' work under supervision of the
 locomotive and car departments...:' Since the parties specifically
 disagree over the application of this latter language to the
 cleaning of the new paint booth, the Board must look to past
 practice. There is none per se which supports the Claim since the
 technology used to clean the booth is different than the old paint
 removal technology. There is no evidence that the craft had ever
 done this specific kind of work. Further, the Carrier notes that
 this is the third time that it had contractors come in and do the
 work at bar albeit the application of the Filmite, prior to the
 re-use of the paint booth, remains Painters' work. Although the
 Organization always has the privilege and right to police its
 Agreement, it is undeniable that a past practice~had set in at this
 shop by which the Carrier had cleaned the paint booth with
 contractors.

 low
 Form 1 Award No. 12486
 Page 7 Docket No. 12294
 92-2-91-2-84

On balance, the Board must conclude that the Organization has insufficiently met the burden of proof that the idiosyncratic, new work of cleaning the new paint booth necessarily belongs to its craft. For the craft to have prevailed in this case, the Carrier would have had to initiate new training, with new equipment, to handle new work, done quite infrequently, which had not been done by the craft in the past. In short, neither the general language of Rule 154, nor any identifiable past practice relative to the kind of work specifically at bar in this case, supports the position of the organization in this Claim and the Board must rule accordingly.


                        A W A R D


      Claim denied.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest
 ancy J 90er - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of November 1992.
 -AIW