(c-1) Mechanics, first-class: Mechanics who are capable of laying out work and working from plans, skilled in the erection of new structures, as well as altering and maintaining existing structures and performing all other bridge and building work in a workmanlike manner coming under the scope of this department, shall be considered composite mechanics as their work comprises all classes of mechanical work.

(c-2) Mechanics, second class: Mechanics capable of doing all rough carpenter, bridge and repair work.

(d) Bridge & Building Helpers: Employes assigned to perform work generally recognized as helper's work and assisting mechanics in the performance of their work."

The work of transporting the pipe and back filling the section maintenance gang performed on request of the B&B foreman (who incidentally claimed no violation of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, and saw none) is not construction, repair nor maintenance as contemplated by the above rule, nor it is skilled or rough carpenter, bridge, construction or repair work.

Rule 1, Group 1(f), permits laborers to perform excavating or back filling and pick and shovel work. Therefore, how can it be said that such work is that of B&B mechanics or helpers as claimed here when section laborers under the same agreement with the organization involved here performed the simple task of transporting pipe and doing back filling at request .of the B&B Foreman whose gang needed assistance.

Hauling material is not a monopoly of any craft and back filling is unskilled laborers' work, under the agreement. Neither is contained in the Scope Rule nor in Group 1 (a), (b), (c-1), (c-2), nor (d).

On the basis of the facts and evidence in this case, the claim has no merit and should be declined.

It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance, known to the organization's representatives.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in the instant case are not in dispute. On May 13 and 14, 1968, B&B Department Gang No. 2 was assigned by the Carrier to install a metal pipe culvert near Lackland, Missouri. In the performance of this work the B&B Gang was assisted by members of Track Department Gang No. 1 in transporting the pipe from Lackland to the point of installation, installing the pipe, and the backfilling necessary to complete the project. This use of Track Department employes was protested on the basis that furloughed B&B employes should have been recalled to service to do this work.

Petitioner contends that employes in the B&B seniority classifications have the contractual right to perform all service directly or indirectly related to the construction of structures of whatever character within the territorial limits of their seniority district; that the use of any employes outside the B&B seniority classification is a violation of the Agreement; the Organization claims that the Claimants (employes of the B&B seniority classifications

which include B&B laborers), are entitled to be paid for the number of hours consumed by Track Department seniority employes while assisting the B&B Gang in moving the pipe, installing it, and in the backfilling work performed.

Carrier takes the position that the Petitioner has the burden of proof to point to some contractual provision granting the work to the Petitioner. The work of transporting the pipe and backfilling the section maintenance gang performed is not construction, repair or maintenance as contemplated by the rule and it is not skilled or rough carpenter, bridge, construction or repair work. Hauling material is not a monopoly of any craft and backfilling is unskilled laborers' work under the Agreement. It is further argued by the Carrier that the Scope Rule does not grant this laborers' work to any specific craft and further that section gangs have the precise function of doing laborers' work. There is also the additional fact that whatever skilled work was involved in the instant project was in fact performed by B&B forces.

There is no showing in either the contract between the parties or their past practice under the Agreement that any particular craft has the sole right to move equipment to a work project or backfilling. It would appear that this work was in fact non-skilled labor and the record is devoid of proof that the work in question has been traditionally or historically performed by the Petitioner.

FINDINGS: 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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was not violated by the Carrier.

AWARD