PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The Agreement was violated when, on September 28,29, 30 and October 1, 1982, a Track Sub-department employe was assigned and used to perform Bridge and Building Sub-department work at Peoria, Illinois (System File PPUT34981M 59-82).

(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, furloughed B&B Mechanic R. R. Flores shall be allowed thirty-two (32) hours of pay.

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the Carrier's use of a Track Sub
department t3nploye to tear down a roundhouse in Peoria,
Illinois. The Organization claims that under Rule 39(b) of the Agreement this
work is reserved to Bridge and Building Sub-department employes. Rule 39(b)
reads:



The Carrier maintains that the work in question was not B&B work because the roundhouse was not "dismantled". According to the Carrier, because of the deteriorated condition of the building, it was "torn down". A crane was used to collapse the walls. The Carrier chose an Employe who holds seniority as a Machine operator for the work, because a machine was used. The Carrier argues that the work was not skilled construction or dismantling work which must be performed by B&B hfiployes.

The Board finds nothing in the record which substantiates the Carrier's claim that B&B Employes were not entitled to the work under the Agreement. The distinction the Carrier makes between "tearing down" and "dismantling" is contradicted by the ordinary dictionary definitions of the word "dismantle". Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, defines "dismantle" as "to take apart or tear down". The inaccuracy of this alleged distinction was addressed specifically in a prior award, Award 54-PLB 1844 which stated:

                    Docket Number MW-25500


        "At bottom line the answer to the central question turns upon whether the words I...a11 work in connection with the... dismantling of structure encompasses the tearing down and hauling away of the old roundhouse. Giving those words of description their plain and ordinary meaning, we must conclude that they do clearly and unambiguously cover the work in dispute. Reinforcement for this conclusion is found in the clear language of Rule 3 Classification.'


The Board concurs with the reasoning expressed in this Award as it is applicable to this dispute. The Board finds that the Agreement was violated.

        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 violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest. Imp
Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of July 1985.


                                        i