The complained of work involved the assembly of ten sections of prefabricated steel shelving to be used as storage of electrical equipment in the electricians' work area of Carrier's Hayne Shop. Carrier contends, inter alia, that the assembly of the shelving involved a simple task, that required neither special training nor special tools, and did not take over two hours per shift per employee, and, therefore, it could be assigned to any Shop Craft employee, by the terns of the revised Incidental Work Rules of the November 27, 1991, Imposed Agreement.

The application of the revised Incidental Work Rule of the November 27, 1991, Imposed Agreement has been exhaustively reviewed in Awards 2 through 13 of Public Law Board No. 5479. ' In Award 2 of PLB 5479 it was stated:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, Carrier asserts that it is privileged to assign the work of changing filters to Carmen-Painters in accordance with Article V - Incidental Work Rule, of the July 31, 1992 .Imposed Agreement. Herein lies the true dispute before this Board, which, it is believed is a matter of first impression. As such, considerable inquiry is necessary .into background factors.

The July 31, 1992 Imposed Agreement was the end product of a protracted round of National negotiations involving most of the railroad industry, but not the IAM&AW. When the parties were unable to reach agreement, President Bush convened Presidential Emergency Board 219 (PEB 219). PEB 219, among its many recommendations, suggested changes to the 1970 Incidental Work Rule, to which the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM&AW), the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (BRC), and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (IBB&B) are parties. PEB 219's recommendations were:

'1 The "Imposed Agreement" involved in PLB 5479 was the IAM Agreement dated July 31, 1992, which occurred because the IAM had its case considered by PEB 220, while the Carmen's organization Was involved in the proceedings before PEB 219. PEB 220 found that it could not justify allowing the machinists craft to deviate from the PEB 219 pattern, thus for all practical purposes the November 27,

102-29, which had the effect of imposing the

recommendations of PEB 219, subject to clarification and

modification by a Special Board. The only relevant

clarification or modification made by the Special Board

was the confirmation that each employee was allowed to

perform up to two hours of simple tasks per shift.

Subsequently, the parties were unable to agree upon

contract language to implement Public Law 102-29, and

requested the Public Law Board to choose between the

proposed terms. The final language of the Incidental

Work Rules, as decided by the Special Board, is as

follows:

`ARTICLE V - INCIDENTAL WORK RULE

Section 1

The coverage of the Incidental Work Rule is expanded to include all shop craft employees represented by the organization party hereto and shall read as follows:

Where a shop craft employee or employees are performing a work assignment, the completion of which calls for the performance of "incidental work" (as hereinafter defined) covered by the classification of work or scope rule of another craft or crafts, such shop craft employee or employees may be required, so far as they are capable, to perform such incidental work provided it does not comprise a preponderant part of the total amount of work involved in the assignment.

Section 3

This Article shall be come effective ten

(10) days after the date of this Agreement

except on such carriers as may elect to

preserve existing rules or practices and so

notify the authorized representative on or

before such effective date.'

The IAM&AW was not a party to PEB 219 or the

subsequently enacted Public Law 102-29. Presidential

Emergency Board 220 (PEB 220), which did involve the

IAM&AW, however, noted the Incidental Work Rule which

evolved from PEB 219 and found that it could not "justify

allowing the machinists craft to deviate from the PEB 219

pattern." Consequently, PEB 220 recommended the adoption

of the new Incidental Work Rule as developed by PEB 219

and the Special Board.

PEB 219 described the history of the Incidental Work Rule and, in doing so, explained the reasons for the changes it recommended. The original rule was imposed by Congress in 1970 (Public Law 91-226) and permitted certain simple tasks traditionally performed by members of one Craft to be performed by members of another Craft at running repair locations which are not designated as outlying points. In later years, the Carriers proposed the concept of the "composite mechanic" who would be able to perform the work of all Shop Crafts. With regard to the Carriers' proposal before PEB 219, the Board wrote:

'The Carriers' current proposal - rejected out of hand by the Shop Crafts - is to adopt an intercraft work rule authorizing carriers to assign mechanical or shop work to members of the crafts who are capable of performing it, without regard to classification or assignment of work rules. The current rule, according to the Carriers, suffers from two significant limitations: it does not apply to the major repair shops and it is inapplicable to many simple tasks that, although not "incidental" under the rule, could easily be performed by members of any craft. Included among such tasks, according to the Carriers, are various kinds of preparatory work for repair jobs such as loosening a bolt to remove a pipe or disconnecting a hose or electrical leads.

It is clear from this explanation, and from the language of the current rule, that three substantive changes were made. First, the rule was made applicable to all shop craft employees. Second, it was also made applicable in back shops. Third, the range of work that can be performed by employees of other crafts was expanded from the historical definition of incidental work to include simple tasks requiring neither special training nor special tools, even though such tasks are not incidental to another task. A maximum of two hours per employee was imposed on this third change in the rule.

It is the third change which is in dispute in this case. Under the prior rule, a mechanic was permitted to perform the work of another craft only when such work, in some way, related to the principal task being performed. It is clear that the new rule eliminated the requirement that the work be related to the principal task. If this Board were to accept the argument advanced by both the IAM&AW and the Carmen (as well as the other Shop Craft

. Organizations which have filed third party submissions in related disputes before this Board) that the simple tasks must still be related to the principal work assignment, then nothing would have been added by the inclusion of the provision:

'In addition to the above, simple tasks may be assigned to any craft employee capable of performing them for a maximum of two hours per shift. Such hours are not to be considered when determining what constitutes a 11preponderant part of the assignment.°'

(Emphasis added.)