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


          (1) The Agreement was violated when Cabinetmaker H. Boettcher was assigned to perform carpenter's work outside of the Union Station (Headhouse) on September 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19, 1972. (Carrier's File 013-293-16).


          (2) Carpenter Roy Fox now be allowed forty (40) hours' pay at the carpenter's rate because of the violation described in part (1) of this claim.


          OPINION OF BOARD: Boettcher, a Cabinetmaker, was assigned to perform

          certain carpentry work (building and installing partitions in a Superintendent's office) away fr


                Claimant asserts a violation of Rule 2:


                "Bridge and Building Carpenter: An employe assigned to Carpenter work in connection with Construction, maintenance and dismantling of bridges, buildings, m of asbestos or composite materials (except corrugated siding and roofing), roll roofing and cold asphalt coatings, shall constitute a Bridge and Building


                (a) Bridge and Building Carpenters assigned to layout work from blue prints or on instructions from supervisory authority will receive a differential of 64; per hour while so engaged.


                  Bridge and Building Cabinetmaker: A highly skilled employe assigned to Cabinetmaker work; general Headhouse maintenance, (not conflicting with work classification of Shop Craft employes in the Bridge and Building Department) under jurisdiction of Bridge and Building Department shall constitute a Bridge and Building Cabinetmaker."


_ i
                Award Number 20659 Page 2

                Docket Number MW-20677


Although Claimant seems to concede that a Cabinetmaker may perform cabinet work at locations away from the Headhouse, he states that general carpenter work, away from the Headhouse, is only properly performed by B&B carpenters.

 The Organization noted that a semi-colon follows the words "Cabinetmaker work" in the above cited Riles Provision. Hence, it argues, carpenter work is considered in the same manner as general maintenance, i.e., restricted to the Headhouse. Carrier argues that no rule of grammatical construction requires
We have studied the applicable Rule at length, but we are unable to conclude that it conveys the rigid restriction placed upon it by Claimant. To be sure, the semi-c state that carpenter work may only be performed at the Headhouse. At best, we could presume that the language is susceptible of conflicting interpretation - in which event, pe would be required in order to sustain the claim. We will dismiss the claim for failure of proof.

        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 claim be dismissed for failure of proof.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST;_4·
                !Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of March 1975.