Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The carrier violated the Agreement when on February 18 and 19, 1979, it asaigneld Section Foreman J. L. Magee instead of Trackman T. L. Boykin to perform the work of cleaning ice and snow from switches at Franklin, Virginia (System File C-4(36)-TLB/12-27(79-45) J)·

 (2) Trackman T. L. Boykin be allowed thirteen and one-half (13-1/2) hours of pay at his time and one-half rata because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Because of a heavy snowstorm on February 1$, 1979 around
 Suffolk, Virginia, most of Carrier's trains were annulled is that area. The anticipated use of the maintenance of way farce was not necessary. However, one of the Carrier's shippers advised Carrier that it would continue its switching operations on as around-the-clock basis.

 Upon learning that the shipper would continue to operate during the snowstorm, Carrier dispatched the Section Foreman to the shipper's facility to keep in contact with the operation at that location and to assist the shipper if needed because of the severe weather.

 When the Section Foreman arrived at the Shipper's facility he was available to ride the shipper's engine and assist is any manner concerning the interchange between shipper tracks and the railroad's tracks. During the time that the Section Foreman was assisting the shipper he cleaned ice and snow from the switches that united the Carrier's track with those of the shipper. The Claimant, a trackman, states that he should have been called for this work.

 The Organization cites the violation of a number of Agreement rules, but the crux of the matter concerns whether or not the Scope Rule has been violated. The Scope Rule, Rule 1, of the Agreement is generalized. Rule 5 of the Agreement which implements the Scope Rule assigns Foremen to Rank 1 in the Track Subdepartmeat and Trackman to Rank 6. Obviously the individual classifications establish seniority within departmental lines by function. But nowhere is there a definition of the work that can be said to be the exclusive function of that classification. Therefore, the Board must look to the practice of the concerned classification is conditions such as existed an February 18, 1979.
 Award Number 211029
 Docket Number MW-23933

 Page 2

 There is some inherent disagreement is the content of the work performed by the Section Foreman on the night is question. The Petitioner claims for 13h hours apparently on the ground that the Foreman cleaned switches during this time. The Carrier responds that the Foreman was at the property of the Shipper to render all possible assistance and in the course of his duty he may have cleaned switches. The truth of the nature of the duty is irrelevant because there is no proof that if the duty had been solely the cleaning of switches, such was prohibited by the past practice of the Carrier. There are assertions by the Carrier that Foreman had historically performed this kind of assistance is similar circumstances. The Petitioner states that it is not proper to remove a Foreman from his usual duties and assign him work that normally belongs to the classified employee who usually performs this work.

 It is not canal that a Forman should perform the duties of a class 6 Trackman even though both take their rights from the same Agreement. However, in emergency conditions such as existed on the night of February 18, 1979, absent a showing to the contrary, a Foreman can assist a shipper in keeping its operation functioning. If this assistance includes the removal of ice and snow from the Carrier's switches he may render this assistance without violating the Agreement.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employer involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1931+;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board ha~.'Jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this '-5th coy of :;o·.·ember 1-;1802.

 CRE C El Vel)
DEC 3 I.qp?

, Ce NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division