"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 a boilermaker to perform work

Reyburn, ID #623200, (hereinafter referred to as `claimant') four

hours at the applicable carman straight time 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 claim protests the Carrier's October 2, 1995 assignment of a Boilermaker to weld the coupler pocket to the face plate on Locomotive 6006 at the Huntington Locomotive Shop. The record reflects that the assignment was for a period of between two and four hours and that an electric arc welder was used to perform the job.

The Organization argues that such work is reserved to its craft under the language of Rule 154 (a) that defines Carmans' work to include °°. . . oxy-acetylene, thermit and electric welding on work generally recognized as carmen's work...", and (b) which states ". . . that present practice in the performance of work between the carmen and the boilermakers will continue." The Organization asserts that Carmen have historically performed the task of welding and repairing all couplers and draft gear lugs and other repairs associated with the draft system on locomotives at the Huntington Locomotive Shop. It contends that the Carrier may not rely upon the Incidental Work Rule in this case because the task of replacing the face plate was completed two days prior to the time when the welding assignment was made, and cannot be considered an incidental part of such assignment or work performed to complete that assignment. The Organization notes that the welding was a separate job assignment, not incidental to the application of the face plate. The Organization further contends that the Incidental Work Rule does not require it to request a time study before progressing a claim of this sort.

The Carrier initially asserts that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim because the Organization failed to request a time study as required by Section 1 of the Incidental Work Rule. It further contends that this job assignment was permissible under the Incidental Work Rule because it involved a task that was incidental to the main task of replacing the face plate, which took 16 hours for Carmen to perform and is a simple task.

Consideration of the language of Section 1 of the Incidental Work Rule is determinative of this case. It reads as follows:

"Where a shopcraft 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 shopcraft 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 it involves the removal and replacing or the

disconnecting and connecting of parts and appliances such ,as wires, piping,

covers, shielding and other appurtenances from or near the main work

assignment in order to accomplish that assignment, and shall include

simple tasks that require neither special training nor special tools.

Incidental work shall be considered to comprise a preponderant part of the

assignment when the time normally required to accomplish it exceeds the

time normally required to accomplish the main work assignment.

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 `preponderant part of the assignment.'

If there is a dispute as to whether or not work comprises a `preponderant part' of a work assignment the carrier may nevertheless assign the work as it feels it should be assigned and proceed or continue with the work and assignment in question; however, 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. If it does, a claim will be honored by the carrier for the actual time at pro rata rates required to perform the incidental work."

cannot be said to be incidental to the main work assignment, and, even if it were, the Incidental Work Rule would permit the welding work to be performed by the craft doing the "preponderant part" of the assignment, which was admittedly the Carmen herein.

Additionally, because there is no argument between the parties about the preponderant part of the work and who was to perform it, the Board can see no relevance to a time study request in this case. The Organization never claimed that the welding aspect of this assignment took a greater time than replacing the face plate, only that they were separate assignments due to the lapse of time between them. The Carrier did not explain how this part of the Incidental Work Rule applies to the facts in this case or serves as a basis for dismissing the claim. Because the failure of the Organization to request a time study was raised by the Carrier as an affirmative defense to the claim, it bears the burden of proof with respect to it. We find that it failed to meet that burden in this case.

Accordingly, we sustain the claim and direct that the Claimant be compensated four hours for the lost work opportunity on October 2, 1995 at his pro rata rate of pay.

Claim sustained.

ORDER