PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The Agreement was violated when Speed Swing Model 441-B headquartered at Blue Island, Illinois a to Group 14 Machine Operator D. Hickerson (System File NIRCRC-P-718).

(2) Group 13 Machine Operator John Teufel shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered from August 26, 1982 and continuous thereafter until such time as he is properly assigned to Speed Swing 441-B located at Blue Island, Illinois."

OPINION OF BOARD: The basic dispute arose when a Speed Swing machine was
destroyed in an accident. The machine in question had
been operated by an employe holding Group 13 Seniority. A temporary replace
ment machine was utilized and operated by an employe holding Group 14
seniority. Subsequently, a new machine was purchased, the position was bid,
and the work was assigned to the senior qualified and bidding Group 14
employe. The senior qualified and bidding Group 13 employe was not awarded
the position and filed the instant claim.

The Organization contends that historically and customarily the Carrier had utilized two different types of Speed Swing machines, one of which type (the relatively light weight 441 model) was assigned to Group 13 and one (the relatively heavier weight 442 model) to Group 14. The language of the agreement makes no model distinction. The Carrier contends that the new 441-B model is a more sophisticated and advanced machine, different from the previously owned model, and n
The Rules Agreement language on group machine jurisdiction is very specific in some instances. For example, it notes that: Group 13 jurisdiction covers "Track Crane Operators (less than 7 1/2 tons)"; and that Group 14 jurisdiction covers "Track Crane operators (7 1/2 tons or more)." In the case of "Speed Swing Operators", however, there is no such distinction made, and the position is listed under both Group 13 and 14.

Absent such a restriction, or proof of systemwide custom and practice, the Board concludes that the Carrier was free to assign the machine to the jurisdiction of either group without violating the Agreement.







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.


                          AWARD


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. a4"r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1986.