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.

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

As Third Party in Interest, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was advised of the pendency of this dispute and chose to file a Submission with the Board.

The record developed on the property reflects the following. On January 29, 1999, the Local Chairman filed the claim with the Director Locomotive Shops. The claim asserted, "Since January 6, 1999 for three hours every day the carrier has assigned Three Electricians to load traction motors in flat cars which has been assigned work for Machinists for the past fourteen years."

On February 22, 1999, the Director Rebuild Operations responded, in relevant part:

"As you well know, we recently stopped loading traction motors using the My-Jack. We have installed an overhead crane to replace the out of date My-Jack. While the operating of the My-Jack was the responsibility of the machinist craft, the operation of overhead cranes is not the exclusive rights of your craft. The operation of these cranes have been done by every craft in the shop for many, many years."

On March 2, 1999, the Organization appealed to the General Director Labor Relations. The appeal advised, in part:

"In the penultimate paragraph of [the Director Rebuild Operations'] letter, he tries to lead one to believe that the Organization's claim is concerning the operation of the overhead crane used to load and unload the traction motors. However, that particular portion of the task was not disturbed, the machinists still operate the crane used to load and unload

the traction motors. The issue involved in this dispute is that actual loading and unloading of the traction motors to and from the rail flat cars which is now being performed by members of the Electrician's Craft."

The General Director Labor Relations denied the claim, stating:

"Carrier has installed an overhead crane to replace the out of date MyJack. While the operating of the My-Jack was the responsibility of the machinist craft, the operation of the overhead crane is not the exclusive right of your craft. The operation of overhead cranes have been performed by various shop craft employees in the Jenks Shop for many years."

The General Chairman responded:

"The issue in this dispute is not the operation of an overhead crane . . . Machinists are still assigned the duties of operating the involved crane, this dispute deals with the actual loading and unloading of the traction motors to and from the rail flat cars which entails connecting the lift hooks to the traction motors, and disconnecting same after the motors have been guided in their proper position for transport."

Before the Board, the Carrier argues that the Organization failed to prove a systemwide practice of Machinists exclusively performing the work in question. However, the Carrier never raised such an argument during handling on the property. Accordingly, we may not consider it for the first time here.

The Carrier also argues that the work has changed. It previously was performed using a My-Jack crane, the operation of which was the responsibility of Machinists. The Carrier switched to using an overhead crane, which is not the exclusive work of Machinists. The IBEW similarly seizes on the change from My-Jack to overhead crane, arguing that the operation of electric overhead cranes has been exclusively performed by electricians.

However, the claim did not concern the operation of the crane. Each time the Carrier alluded to the switch from a My-Jack to an overhead crane, the Organization responded that it was not claiming the operation of the crane, but rather the actual