(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc. (Formerly Spokane, (Portland and Seattle Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier used or otherwise permitted two sectionmen and a truck driver to unbolt the canopy from Truck 75 on April 15, 1971 (System File 367 F/PIW-84, 8-24-71-A).

 (2) Mechanics C. Lassiter and R. Robertson each be allowed twelve (12) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose when Carrier put a new truck in service
 as a rel,icement for Truck 75, which was assigned to Sec
 tion 1 at Portland, Oregon. To make the replacement, it was necessary to
 perform work involving the removal of a canopy from Truck 75 and placing it
 on the new truck. This work was assigned to the two claimants who were regu
 larly assigned mechanics at the Carrier's equipment repair shop at Vancouver,
 Washington. When the claimants arrived at Section 1 to perform the work,
 they found that two sectionmen and the driver of Truck 75 had removed the
 bolts that fastened the canopy to the bed of Truck 75. Except for the remov
 al of these bolts, the entire canopy operation was performed by claimants.

 The Petitioner contends that removal of the bolts is work reserved to mechanics under the Maintenance of Way Agreement, particularly Rule 41, and that the performance of such work by the sectionmen and the truck driver was in violation of the Agreement. The Carrier admits that the canopy was unbolted from Truck 75 by Carrier contends that the work of unbolting the canopy is not precluded by the Agreement from performance by the sectionmen and the truck driver and that such work is not reserved exclusively to mechanics under the Maintenance of Way Agreement. Carrier also asserts that paragraph 2 of a December 4, 1959 Agreement permits such work to be performed by the driver of the truck.

 Rule 41 and the aforementioned paragraph 2 of the 1959 Agreement read as follows:










The above quoted language, as applied to the facts of this case, is clear and unambiguous. Unfastening bolts from the bed of a truck does not constitute "making repairs" to such truck and, hence, paragraph 2 of the 1959 Agreement has no relevance here. Rule 41 is controlling. Unquestionably, the work of removing t it on the new truck, falls within the category of dismantling automotive equipment under Rule 41. Un fact the first step in, removing the canopy from Truck 75 and, consequently, the work was reserved under the Rule to the mechanics class. Accordingly, we shall sustain the claim. However, the claim of 12 hours straight time for each claimant is disproportionate to the amount of time reasonably required to perform the disputed work. We shall therefore award that the claimants be allowed 3 hours each at their respective straight time rates.



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

                    Docket Number MW-19895

                    A W A R D


Claim sustained to the extent of thr=_e (3) hours to each claimant at his straight time rate.
                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973,
              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

              Award Number 19909

              THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-19895


                Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc. (Formerly Spokane, (Portland and Seattle Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier used or otherwise permitted two sectionmen and a truck driver to unbolt the canopy from Truck 75 on April 15, 1971 (System File 367 F/HW-84, 8-24-71-A).

 (2) Mechanics C. Lassiter and R. Robertson each be allowed twelve (12) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose when Carrier put a new truck in service
 as a rej, icement for Truck 75, which was assigned to Sec
 tion 1 at Portland, Oregon. To make the replacement, it was necessary to
 perform work involving the removal of a canopy from Truck 75 and placing it
 on the new truck. This work was assigned to the two claimants who were regu
 larly assigned mechanics at the Carrier's equipment repair shop at Vancouver,
 Washington. When the claimants arrived at Section 1 to perform the work,
 they found that two sectionmen and the driver of Truck 75 had removed the
 bolts that fastened the canopy to the bed of Truck 75. Except for the remov
 al of these bolts, the entire canopy operation was performed by claimants.

 The Petitioner contends that removal of the bolts is work reserved to mechanics under the Maintenance of Way Agreement, particularly Rule 41, and that the performance of such work by the sectionmen and the truck driver was in violation of the Agreement. The Carrier admits that the canopy was unbolted from Truck 75 by Carrier contends that the work of unbolting the canopy is not precluded by the Agreement from performance by the sectionmen and the truck driver and that such work is not reserved exclusively to mechanics under the Maintenance of Way Agreement. Carrier also asserts that paragraph 2 of a December 4, 1959 Agreement permits such work to be performed by the driver of the truck.

 Rule 41 and the aforementioned paragraph 2 of the 1959 Agreement read as follows:

i

I

                    Award Number 19909 Page 2

                    Docket Number MW-19895


          "Rule 41, as it relates to mechanics, reads:


          "First -- Mechanic. An employee skilled in and assigned to building, repairing, dismantling or adjusting roadway machine equipment and machinery, automotive equipment, and responsible for such work."


        Paragraph 2 of the December 4, 1959 Agreement reads as follows:


          "2. To further the purpose of this agreement, it is contemplated that machine operators and/or truck operators may, to the extent they are qualified to do so, make or assist in making repairs to their equipment, either in the repair shop or on line."


The above quoted language, as applied to the facts of this case, is clear and unambiguous. Unfastening bolts from the bed of a truck does not constitute "making repairs" to such truck and, hence, paragraph 2 of the 1959 Agreement has no relevance here. Rule 41 is controlling. Unquestionably, the work of removing t it on the new truck, falls within the category of dismantling automotive equip ment under Rule 41. Unfastening the bolts was an essential part of, and in fact the first step in, removing the canopy from Truck 75 and, consequently, the work was reserved under the Rule to the mechanics class. Accordingly, we shall sustain the claim. However, the claim of 12 hours straight time for each claimant is disproportionate to the amount of time reasonably required to perform the disputed work. We shall therefore award that the claimants be allowed 3 hours each at their respective straight time rates.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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 violated.


i
                    Award Number 19909 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-19895

                    A W A R D


Claim sustained to the extent of thr=_e (3) hours to each claimant at his straight time rate.
                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973.