(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used Extra Gang Foreman H. M. Hyden instead of Lead Welder M. Sanchez to perform welding work in the vicinity of Mile Posts 38 and 39 (Petal-A) on June 11, 16, 28, 29, 30, July 1, 2 and 6, 1971 (System File NWP MofW 152-748).

 (2) Extra Gang Foreman H. M. Hyden be allowed the difference between what he would have received as extra gang foreman for each day referred to in Part (1) hereof.

 (3) Lead Welder M. Sanchez be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at his straight time rate for each day referred to in Part (1) hereof.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispate involves the assignment of Claimsat
 Hyden, an Extra Gang Foreman, to do thermal welding on rail ends on eight days in June and July of 1971. For this work Claimant Hyden received the rate of pay applicable to his position as Extra Gang Foreman. Petitioner alleges that Claimant Ryden ras not paid properly as he should have been compensated at the Welder's rate of pay and further that Claimant Sanchez, who held seniority as a Welder, should have been assigned to perform the welding.

 Both parties agree that Claimant Fyden vas improperly compensated and should receive the differe that of the welder, as provided by Rule 45. That rule provides:



                  Docket Number MW-20231


In support of its position with respect to Claimant Saachez, Petitioner cites Rules 2, 3, 4, and 7. The rules cited relate to rates of pay, classifications and seniority. It is argued by the Organization that welding work belongs to the welding classification and that in this case the primary issue is that welding work was performed by an employe who had never established seniority in the welding classification. It is contended that under Rule 19 seniority rosters are maintained by classes in each group of a sub-department and hence welders are quite separate and apart in a special class from that of an extra gang foreman.

 Carrier's position with respect to Claimant Sanchez is persuasive. Carrier alleges that there is not Petitioner which precludes an extra gang foreman from performing thermal welding as part of his duti foremen *Live traditionally been performing this work on the Carrier's property. Although therf- was a general denial of Carrier's position, no contrary evidence was furnished by Petitioner with respect to this practice.

          The crux of the dispute is whether welding work is either

contractually or by past practice reserved to welders alone. There is
 no evidence with respect to past practice. As to _the_contractual----
 rights, _
      we have repeatedly held that rules listing positions per re

not work reservation rules (see Awards 19921, 19922, 18876, 17421 and many others). With respect to the seniority rules, it is quite clear that seniority rights can only be considered when the right to perform the work is established (Awar 15943 and 17943). Since this record is devoid of evidence or rule support to establish Claimant Sanchez's right to the welding work in question, his claim must be denied.

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


          That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
          That the Agreement was violated.

                    Axard Number 20417 page 3

                    Docket Number W-20231

                    A W A R D


Part (2) of the Claim is sustained. Parts (1) and (3) are denied.

                          RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU8T1m EOm

                          BY Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th daffy of September 1974.