PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned pile driver men (laborers) instead of recalling and assigning Mechanics W. Hart, J. Sifuentes, J. Pannell and V. Lawrence to build pallets between October 25, 1977 and December 2, 1977 (System Files 700-4, 700-12, 700-52 and 700-53).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, furloughed Mechanics W. Hart, J. Sifuentes, J. Pannell and V. Lawrence each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of manhours expended by pile d (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants W. Hart, J. Sifuentes, J. Pannell and V. Lawrence
 are mechanics in the Construction and Maintenance Department
 and as such, have established and hold seniority there. On October 25 through
 December 2, 1977, carrier appointed pile driver men, laborers from the same
 department, to build cargo pallets.

 The organization contends that carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to assign Claimants who were furloughed, available and fully qualified to perform this work. The Organization states that none of the assigned men hold seniority as mechanics. Further, it claims that pallet building has customarily and historically been performed by mechanics.











        "position, the numerical position on the roster in the lower classified position will govern."


                  "ARTICLE 4 - CONSIDERATION


        Rule 1. Right accruing to employes under their seniority entitles them to consideration for positions in accordance with their relative length of service with the company as hereinafter provided."


The Carrier contends there was no violation of the Agreement. It argues that under the provisions of Article 7, Seniority Rosters, no differentiation is made between pile drivers and mechanics. Carrier also c 32, Rule 5 to support this position. Article 7 reads:

                "ARTICLE 7 - SENIORITY ROSTERS


        Rule 1. Seniority rosters of employes of each subdepartment will be separately compiled. Copies will be furnished foremen and employes' representatives. Same will be posted at material Yard bulletin board.


        Rule 2, Seniority rosters will show the name, classification, date of entry and seniority of the employes in the order of their seniority."


        Article 32, Rule 5 states:


              "ARTICLE 32 - CLASSIFICATION OF WORK


        Rule 5. Employes assigned to lettering, stenciling, graining, varnishing, operation of power machines of any and all types shall be classed as shop mechanics and/or carpenters."


A central element of this dispute is whether this work belongs to a certain classification of employes. In order for the Organization to prevail, it must meet its burden of showing that the building of cargo pallets has traditionally belonged to mechanics to the exclusion of others. See Award 20071.

 The evidence presented by the Carrier clearly demonstrates that the work involved here has asst been exclusively performed by mechanics. As such, we are persuaded that mechanics have not customarily and historically performed the disputed work.

 The Employes have also failed to establish, through sufficient evidence, that a distinct differential exists, under the terms of the Agreement between mechanics and pile drivers. In fact, Rule 5 of Article 32 specifically provides the definition of mechanics (or carpenters). Since the rule obviously covers
                  Award Number 23438 Page 3

                  Docket Number r&1-23359


the pile drivers when performing the work in question, they must be viewed as being shop mechanics and/or carpenters. This is the clear import of Rule 5.

 Given the absence of proof in the record that the work falls to the mechanic or carpenter class, we must find that the Agreement was not violated. Accordingly, we will deny the claim in its entirety.

        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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTDSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Thlxd Division


Attest:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of November 1981.