PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to allow Machine Operators B. Ellis and 0. Rodriquez pay at the Bridge and Building Mechanic's rate for the work they performed on the 'Merchants Bridge' beginning June 16, 1980 (System File TRRA 1980-16).

 (2) Machinie Operators B. Ellis and 0. Rodriquez each be allowed the difference between what they should have received at the Bridge and Building Mechanic's rate and what they were paid at the machine operator's rate beginning June 16, 1980 and continuing until the project is completed."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The basic issue before this Board is the appropriate
 application of the Controlling Agreement's Classification Rule (Rule 2), particularly that portion delineated under the designation, General Notes, Paragraph (b), which reads as follows:

Claimants argue that they were assigned with their respective machines to assist B&B forces in the replacement of bridge ties on Carrier's Merchants Bridge and performed maintenance of bridge work, which entitled them to be paid the ironworkers rate, in accordance with Paragraph (b) (Supra). In addition, they contend that Rule 39, the Composite Service Rule, requires that employes working in higher positions will be paid the higher rate for the actual time worked.

 Carrier asserts that Claimants were performing their assigned tasks when operating the tie handler machines in effecting tie replacements, which was work routinely performed by track machine operators within the Track SubDepartment. It argues th rather than at ground level, is not B&B Ironworkers work in connection with the construction, erection, maintenance and dismantling of bridges, buildings, miscellaneous structures and appurtenances, but track maintenance work which is their assigned duty.

 In considering this case, the Board finds it difficult to determine precisely whether the ties were inserted on a gavel deck approach or the open
 Award Number 24264
 Docket Number MW-21+259

 Page 2

 steel bridge. The claim as filed indicates that the tie replacement occurred on both ends of the Merchants Bridge and as such, it could well be that the ties were inserted in the subgrade vis the approach to the bridge. We recognize the separation of work between the respective sub departments as set forth by Paragraph (b) Supra, but we are not certain as to the exact location where the ties were replaced. Without this evidence, we are unable to determine whether the aforesaid paragraph was viol


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, 1931+;

 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.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary

NATIGNAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 y
 ; Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March 1983.

 t~.l v a <b

Chica 9o