The facts of the case are that at approximately 3:00 P.M. on March 21, 2007, the Claimant observed Supervisors T. Witham and S. Gigure undoing two straps on the back of a trailer at W aterville, Maine.

It is the ~t'g~nizatinn'g potion, that the Carrier violated Rule 2 (q) which states, in pertinent part, the following:

"Other work generally recognized as Carman's work."

It argued that when the Carrier Mowed Supervisors to unload a truck they were doing CarmaWs protected work. It farther argued that Supervisors should supervise and not perform work that accrues to Carmen by Agreement. It requested that the claim be sustained to pest the integrity of the Agreement.

It is the position of the Carrier that it dill not violate the Agreement It argued that on the date in question the two Managers undid two straps on the back of a trader, after which they left the property. According to the Carrier this took less than a minute to perform. It further stated the Claimant witnessed the Managers undoing the straps, but he did not view them unloading the trailer because that never happened. Secondly, it points out that the Claimant never saw the Managers unloading the trailer because that was on his way home and left work. Furthermore, it argued that the Managers were also leaving work for the day at 3:00 P.M. when they were contacted by an Assistant Manager from the Locomotive Shop. Locomotive Shop employees work until 3:30 P.M. and needed to have a flat bed trailer that was loaded with various items including filters for locomotives, unloaded in a hurry because it had started raining. Supervisors Witham and Gigure stopped by the trailer on their way home, and hurriedly removed two ratchet straps that secured filters, so that a Locomotive Shop employee operating a forklift could unload them before they got wet.

Lastly, the Carrier argued that various other crafts such as the Machinists, Electricians, Laborers, Sheetmetal Workers, Blacksmiths, Boilermakers, and BMWE employees have traditionally done the same work. It concluded by requesting that the claim remain denied.

The Board thoroughly reviewed the instant dispute and discovered there is nothing in the record which refutes the aforementioned Carrier Officer's statements that their combined "work" took approximately one minute. Additionally, there is no evidence which refutes the Carrier's statement that the subject trailer was unloaded by Locomotive Shop employees and not Supervisors. Likewise, there is nothing in the record which refutes the argument that other shop employees have historically done the same disputed work. Therefore, in this instance because the "work" at best was "de minimis"the Board finds and holds that the claim must be denied.

AWARD