This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

This claim requests overtime payment for two Painters for Carrier's October 28, 1995 contracting of the work of stenciling designating numbers on the building structure at the ends of pits 1-25 in the High Bay at the Huntington Locomotive Shop. The Organization asserts exclusive and historical jurisdiction over such work on the basis of Rule 154, Classification of Work, and Paragraph 2 of the February 2, 1955 Memorandum Agreement that provides, in pertinent part:

"The Shop Craft painters will paint all equipment, facilities or accessories, whether free, fastened or mounted in floor of buildings, such as . . . shop signs.... identification markings . . . ."

Carrier denied the claim on the basis of the fact that this restenciling work was part of the contract for repainting the ceilings and columns that was done as a turnkey operation, with the contractor being responsible for all aspects of the job and no work of any craft separated out. Other arguments raised by the Organization on the property but not progressed to the Board are not properly before us for consideration.

The issue in this case is whether the Organization sustained its burden of proving that its members were entitled to perform the work in question in this instance, or whether Carrier rebutted such contention on the basis that this work was part of a larger contract that it was not required to piecemeal. It was undisputed that Carmen Painters had performed the work of painting shop signs and designated markings at the Huntington Locomotive Shop in the past. It was also undisputed that Carrier contracted the cleaning and painting of the structural steel ceilings and columns in the High Bay and the Organization did not argue with the fact that this stenciling was a result of the numbers having been painted over during this process. There is no evidence of the scope of the contract or its inclusions in the record developed on the property other than that it was a turnkey operation, with contractor responsibility for all facets of the job.

While the Board is mindful that Carrier is not obligated to piecemeal contracted projects to permit the assignment of a small portion of the job to a single craft, see Second Division Awards 12826, 12825; Special Board of Adjustment No. 570, Awards

433, 426 and 394, this finding is premised upon a showing by Carrier that the disputed work was encompassed within the contract, was only a small portion of it, and was not easy to segregate. A review of the record convinces the Board that Carrier failed to prove the requisite elements in this case, as no specifics of the contract or its scope were provided, nor was it clear whether the work in issue herein was originally encompassed within the contract or created as a result of the performance of it. Under these particular circumstances, we must reject Carrier's defense to the performance of this work.

However, we find that the request for payment at the overtime rate is excessive. It is firmly established that the pro rata rate is the proper rate for compensation for work not performed and is the appropriate measure of the value of work lost. See Second Division Awards 6359, 2956. Accordingly, we direct that Claimants receive eight hours compensation each at the pro rata rate for work associated with the October 28, 1995 contracting of the stenciling function.

AWARD