(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when it assigned or otherwise permitted Carrier Officers (B&B Supervisors, Trainmasters, Claim Agents, Carmen Supervisors, Welding Supervisors, etc.) to pick up and load scrap and debris at Pocatello, Idaho (Idaho Division) on March 3, 1982 and at Albina (Barnes) Yard (Oregon Division) on March 30, 1982 (System Files 7-26-13-14-54 and 4-15-13-14-54).

 (2) Furloughed Idaho Division Sectionmen T. H. Jones, A. Rodriquez, B. G. Burdick, C. W. Knapp, L. Rand, B. E. Johnson, C. W. Smith, R. V. Paohi, J. M. Lopez, P. Gonzales, J. Jarmillo, M. F. Bosquez, R. P. Steiner, G. M. Coon and T. L. Christensen and furloughed Oregon Division Sectionmen C. G. Boatwright, J. R. Cooper, R. M. Heintz, A. L. Steele, R. W. Shipley, D. W. Heaton, E. L. Zink, B. R. Hathaway, C. C. Dehoyas, T. A. Stewart and C. A. Keifer shall each be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute, the Organization contends that Carrier
 violated the Agreement when Carrier officers cleaned scrap
 and debris from the right of way at two locations on separate dates.

 It asserts that Rule 9 clearly places this work within the scope of the Agreement and its performance by non-Agreement covered personnel constituted a violation.





                        Docket Number MW-25895


It also cited Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 23 as controlling herein. It avers that in the absence of a conclusive showing that other crafts customarily performed this work, it was obligatory upon Carrier to recall the furloughed Claimants in accordance with Rule 23(a). It notes that in the past the Sectionmen were used exclusively to keep the trackage clear and safe.

 Furthermore, as to the procedural issue raised by Carrier, namely, that the petition progressed to the Board claimed relief for incorrectly identified employes, the Organization maintains that this was an inadvertent transposition of names which does not vitiate the integrity of the petition. It points out that Claimants were specifically identified by name and Carrier was fully mindful of their identity.

 Carrier contends that notwithstanding the Organization's correction of the original Notice of Intent filed with the Board under date of June 28, 1984, the corrected copy submitted on July 29, 1984, was issued well beyond the June 29, 1984, expiration date. Consequently, the petition is untimely and invalid.

 As to the substantive merits of the Claim, Carrier argues that no one class or craft has an exclusive right to remove scrap and debris from trackage and surrounding areas. It asserts that it apprised the Organization that in Terminals or Yards employes of several crafts have a housekeeping responsibility. It notes that in this case, the local Management embarked on a concerted campaign to clean up Barnes Yard at Albina, Oregon, and the Rail Yard at Pocatello, Idaho, which was aimed at improving the appearance of the two Terminals.

 It maintains that user Departments have been traditionally held responsible for keeping their designated areas clean and observes that Clerical, Mechanical and Track.Subdepartment employes have performed such work without disagreement. It acknowledges that two Sectionmen had been assigned at Pocatello to clean the Yard, but asserts that no Sectionmen has been exclusively assigned Yard cleaning duties. On March 3, 1984, it notes that a Section Foreman and two Sectionmen assisted in the concerted clean up.

 In considering the procedural aspects of this case first, we concur with the Organization's position that the Claim is properly before us. We find Carrier's arguments on this point without foundation or plausible logic. The inadvertent transposition of names was plainly a mistake and not prejudicial to Carrier. It woul the other hand, we are compelled to agree with Carrier on the substantive merits, since we find no clear evidence that the Agreement, particularly Rule 9, was violated. There has been no showing that Rule 9 applies to Terminal trackage or Yard track or that systemwide, Sectionmen exclusively performed this type of work at similar-type locations. To be sure, the Organization did note that two Sectionmen at the Pocatello site exclusively performed this work, but this assertion was not buttressed by hard indisputable proof. Letters from Secti
                        Award Number 26453 Page 3

                        Docket Number MW-25895


As to the other Rules cited by the Organization, we find no evidence that said Rules were violated by Carrier's action and, accordingly, we must deny the Claim.

        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 ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


      L~,Z, ,<,-

Attest.
        Nancy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of August 1987.