(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( (Burlington Northern Inc.

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned other than Bridge and Building Department employes to assemble and repair shelves and racks in the Material Department store room at Livingston, Montana from September 10 through October
(2) First Class Carpenter Sig Swanson and Second Class Carpenter Bill Garcia each be allowed one hundred ninety-two (192) hours of pay at their respective straight-time rates because of the aforesaid violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants are carpenters who object to Carrier's assign
 ment of sheet metal workers to assemble and repair free
 standing metal shelves and racks in the storeroom at Livingston, Montana.
 Claimants have submitted evidence tending to show that Bridge and Building
 forces have performed similar work at Livingston in the past. Carrier does
 not take serious issue with Claimant's assertion, as it applies to Livings
 ton. Carrier does take issue with Claimant's view of practice as it applies
 to the former NP, and has submitted evidence that at other locations the work
 sought by Claimants was not performed by B 6 B forces.

 An Award by the Second Division (6544) involved a claim at the same shop and was concerned with the assembly of similar freestanding metal shelves and racks. The Second Division, based upon its interpretation of the Sheet Metal Workers Agreement, found that the work belonged to them. Due to factors which it is not necessary to detail here, that Award is not precedent which is binding upon the Board in this case. Nevertheless Carrier urges that appropriate weight be given findings expressed in that case. While Carrier has not emphasized the point, the referee sitting with the Board doe note that the Award of the Second Division was dated June 28, 1973 and that the assignment of sheet metal workers to perform the work in question here occurred subsequent to that date, in September and October, 1973. It is a reasonable inference that Carrier's assignment was affected by the Award of the Second Division. The fact that the same work is the subject of a claim by one craft, after it had been awarded by a Division of this Board to another craft, illustrates the wisdom of the Court in insisting that all parties to such a dispute be joined, so that ail may be heard and a final determination can be made. In this case notice has been given to the Railway Employes


Department, the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, and the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks. Only the sheet metal workers took the opportunity to enter the case. Their submission takes the position that their rule 62 provides in clear language that the work at issue here belongs to them. They also rely on Awards, including No. 6544, which have held that their work rule describes the work to be performed by covered employes, is not general in nature, and provides that the work in question here is to be assigned to employes represented by them.

 Although the Brotherhood does not agree that the question of exclusivity,which has been before the B it does appear that that principle is applicable and must be considered in this case. The record shows that the work with which we are concerned here, has been performed by employes represented by the Brotherhood, by BRAC, and by the Sheet Metal Workers. Neither the language of the Agreement, nor the practice on the property sup




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






                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: aw&A lmloa_~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1976.