"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:

1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company (CSX

Transportation, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as `carrier') violated

the controlling Shop Crafts Agreement specifically Rule 154 (a) and

(b), when the carrier assigned boilermakers to work exclusively

reserved to the carman craft.

2. Accordingly, the carrier be instructed to pay carman D.D.

Icenhower, ID #624787, (Hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') four

hours at the applicable carman overtime rate for said violation."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

As Third Party in Interest, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths was advised of the pendency of this dispute, but it chose not to file a Submission with the Board.

This dispute arose because the Carrier assigned two Boilermakers to weld the front coupler pocket to the face plate on Locomotive CSXT 8181 at the Huntington, West Virginia, Locomotive Shop. An arc welder was used to perform the welding work.

The Organization contends that the disputed work is reserved to the Carman Craft pursuant to its Classification of Work Rule 154(a) and (b) and that Carmen have historically performed the contested work.

The Carrier, for its part, contends that the claim should be denied because the Organization failed to request a time study pursuant to Article V - Section t - Work Rule of the Imposed Agreement dated November 27, 1991. Without prejudice to its position with respect to a time study, it contends that the welding work was incidental to the primary work of applying the face plates to the locomotive and because the disputed work was completed in 45 minutes and no special training or special tools were required, the work could properly be considered as a "simple task" as contemplated by the Incidental Work Rule. which reads as follows:

"Section I

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 rules 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. Work shall be regarded as incidental when

Section 2

Nothing in the Article is intended to restrict any of the existing rights of a carrier.

Section 3

This Article shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of this Imposed Agreement except on such carriers as may elect to preserve

existing rules or practices and so notify the authorized employee representative on or before such effective date."

The Board finds no merit concerning the Carrier's procedural argument that the Organization failed to request a time study as shown by the clear language of the relevant part of Section 1 of the Incidental Work Rule which reads:

". . . the Shop Committee may request that the assignment be timed by the parties to determine whether or not the time required to perform the incidental work exceeds the time required to perform the main work assignment" (Emphasis added)

With respect to the merits, we conclude that the disputed work is properly work reserved to the Carmen Craft. This finding is supported by the on-property record as verified by one of the Carrier's Foremen when he responded to a question as to who performed this work in the past and whether it was exclusively done by Carmen by writing, "Carmen, yes" next to the question itself.

The Board carefully studied and analyzed the various arbitral holdings relied upon by the parties. We find Public Law Board No. 5479, Award 8 involving this Carrier and the Machinists Union directly on point to the essential facts of this case. Chat Board found in relevant part as follows:

"Carrier asserts that it was privileged to assign this work to a Carman pursuant to Article V of the July 31, 1992 Imposed Agreement. (Article V, Incidental Work Rule, has been extensively discussed in Award 2 of this Board, issued this date. It is incorporated into this Award by reference.) The Board does not agree. The Incidental Work Rule, as modified by the Imposed Agreement, does not permit a Carrier to assign 'simple tasks' to an employee of another Craft when such work requires the use of special training or special tools. because special training and special tools remove the work from the category of a `simple task.'

Welding is work that most certainly requires special training and special tools. It is not a simple task. And while Carmen. and for that matter other Crafts, as well as Machinists may perform welding in the particular work of their own Crafts, this fact is not license or privilege for a Carrier to have them do welding work in a different Craft under the

revised Incidental Work Rule. If it were, for example, then any Shop Craft employee capable of performing a specialized work function applicable to the work of more than one Craft, such as welding, could be used as a `composite mechanic' in all Crafts, something objected to by the Organization before PEB 219, something that PEB 219 did not embrace, and something that was not specifically provided in the Imposed Agreement."

The Board notes our holding here is given further substance in that the Carrier, in a letter to "all Carmen" stated in pertinent part "This is to remind and inform you that if you have not attended welding school you cannot work or bid a position in the shop."

With respect to the amount of damages, the Board follows many prior Awards of the Division which have held that pay for work not actually performed is limited to the straight time or ro rata rate of pay. Accordingly, the Claimant is awarded four hours pay at the pro rata rate.

AWARD