hood of Maintenance of Way Employes and R. V. Collins, International Representative, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, and all other work generally recognized as Bridge and Building Carpenter work."

The rule does not specifically cover the work in issue. Even by analogy maintenance of bearings and other metal machinery used in the chain and belt conveyors is remote from the categories enumerated in the above rule. Rule 60 -Classification of Work, in the. Agreement effective September 1, 1949, with System Federation 17, Railway Employes' Department, Mechanical Section thereof, reads:

"Machinists' work shall consist of laying out, fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting, milling and grinding of metals used in building, assembling, maintaining, dismantling and installing locomotives and engines (operated by steam or other power), pumps, cranes, hoists, elevators, pneumatic and hydraulic tools and machinery, scale building, shafting and other shop machinery, ratchet and other skilled drilling and reaming; tool and die making, skilled tool grinding and machine grinding, axle truing, axle, wheel and tire turning and boring; engine inspecting; air equipment, lubricator and injector work; removing, replacing, grinding, bolting and breaking of all joints on superheaters; oxyacetylene, thermit and electric welding on work generally recognized as machinists' work; the operation of all machines used in such work, including drill presses and bolt threaders using a facing, boring or turning head or milling apparatus; and all other work generally recognized as machinists' work."

The balance of the rule relates to certain exceptions and inclusions not pertinent here, such as tool grinding, breaking joints and handling metal pilots on locomotives. As contrasted with the classification rule of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, it will be observed that this rule mentions specifically "hoists, elevators, pneumatic and hydraulic tools and machinery."

On the basis of the above comparison, if the Board reaches the merits of the dispute, Carrier submits that the work questioned here finds its closest definition, whether specific or by analogy, in the classification rule of the Machinists' Agreement, that the work was properly assigned and the result here should be:

Claim denied.

All of the facts and arguments used in this case have been affirmatively presented to employes' representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: In April 1954, the Carrier placed in operation a new mail handling facility at New Haven, Connecticut. Included in the new equipment was an overhead chain conveyor and a belt conveyor system to handle parcel post packages.

On April 14, 1954, B&B employes were assigned the work of maintaining the conveyors used in handling parcel post; this work consisted in making minor adjustments and greasing the equipment. On June 21, 1954, the Carrier assigned an employe from its Mechanical Department to perform this work, thereby depriving B&B employes of the work which they had exclusively per-

formed since April 14, 1954. On July 16, 1954, the Claimants protested this work being assigned to a machinist and on August 23, 1954, Carrier declined the request to have the work reassigned to the employes covered by the Maintenance of Way Agreement. Employes appealed to this Board.

The first question raised is that the Carrier recognized the work as belonging to B&B men by first assigning a B&B employe to the position. With this we cannot agree, the fact that Carrier assigned this work to B&B employes doesn't make it theirs exclusively nor does it mean Carrier recognized it as falling within their Scope Rule.

This Division in Award 8070 said, we quote:

"It will be observed that the Scope Rule in this case does not mention car-retarder system or its motivating power, i.e., the boilers or air-compressors. When the current Agreement was entered into, February 1, 1946, none of these were in use or in construction and there were no car retarder systems, therefore, at that time the work claimed could not possibly have been 'generally recognized as signal work.'

"Since then, true, for twenty-five months Signalmen did most of the work claimed here but it was management's responsibility to assign it to someone initially, and the assignment under the circumstances in this case does not unequivocably commit management forever so that the work becomes the exclusive property of the first one to perform it. Management may still exercise its discretion in the matter until that right is bargained away or becomes clearly committed by the catch-all provision of the Scope Rule. Until that time, management may assign it as it sees fit to any one or several."

The Claimants contend that the work comes under the B&B Agreement. because Rule 53 encompasses "Maintenance of * * * mail cranes, * * *." That what is involved in this dispute, is namely maintaining mail cranes inside of the New Post Office Railroad Terminal Building.

With this we cannot agree, it is the maintenance of new equipment described as a "mail conveyor belt", and could never be considered as a "mail crane."

FlNDINQS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That the Agreement has not been violated.

AWARD