Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13457
Docket No. 13265-T
99-2-97-2-33

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( System Council No. 16) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:








FINDINGS:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.


Form 1 Award No. 13457
Page 2 Docket No. 13265-T
99-2-97-2-33

On September 18, 1995, Burlington Northern locomotive 8033 was disconnected from Train No. 82, after the locomotive consist had been removed from the train, for the purpose of adding it to another train. The handling of the locomotive was done by Carrier's Operating Craft employees on the main line in the Springfield, Missouri, yards.


Third Party notice was issued to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and to the United Transportation Union, but neither chose to respond.


The Organization alleges that the Carrier violated Rules 27, 76 and 98 of the Agreement when Carrier allowed Operating Craft employees other than Claimant J. C. Hilliard to cut and add the locomotive. In a letter dated January 3,1996, Organization President and Local Chairman Eddie E. Mayer states:



The Organization maintains that the work of cutting and adding Locomotive 8033 is an activity reserved to the Electrical Craft and should have been done by Claimant Hilliard who was available to perform the task. The Organization seeks four (4) hours pay at the punitive rate of pay for Claimant Hilliard.


The Carrier contends that work in question is not the exclusive to the Electrician's craft. Carrier adds that the task took less than ten minutes, did not require any special tools or skills, and thus falls under Article V of the Incidental Work Rule and within the scope of the Presidential Emergency Board No. 219.


In numerous Second Division Awards, including Awards No.12544,12000,13133, the Board has repeatedly held that the Electrical Craft does not have exclusive jurisdiction to work that is incidental in nature. After careful review of the case at

Form 1 Award No. 13457
Page 3 Docket No. 13265-T
99-2-97-2-33

hand, the Board finds that the Organization has not supported its allegation that the Carrier violated the Agreement. Accordingly, the instant claim is denied.







This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      By Order of Second Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1999.