Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27571
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26704
 88-3-85-3-456
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned BRAC Mechanics instead of Bridge and Building Department welders to fabricate a swing loader boom at the Duluth Docks on June 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, and 25, 1984.

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, B&B Welders R. Harvey and R. Julin shall each be allowed forty-six (46) hours of pay at the welder's rate."

 FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimants are welders in the Bridge and Building Sub-Department of the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department. At the time this dispute arose, they were regularly assigned at Carrier's Duluth Docks.

 During June of 1984, Carrier assigned two mechanics who hold seniority under the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks' (BRAC) Agreement to cut and weld structural steel to fabricate a new boom for the swing loader at the Duluth Docks. The mechanics performed the work on June 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22 and 25, 1984, expending a total of ninety-two (92) man-hours.

 The Organization contends that the disputed work should have been assigned to the Claimants. It argues that the welding of structural steel, particularly the welding part as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 27571
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26704
 88-3-85-3-456


        (c) An employee assigned to construction, repair, maintenance or dismantling of buildings, bridg building of concrete forms, erecting falsework, setting of columns, beams, girders, trusses, or in _the general structural erection, replacement, maint ings or other structures and in the performance of related bridge and building iron work, such as riveting, rivet heating, or who is assigned to miscellaneous mechanics' bridge and building Carpenter and/or Repairman.


        (g) An employee assigned to the operation of any welding device used in the performance of such work as repairing and tempering, grinding, and slotting rails, frogs and switches constitutes a Track Welder, except on rails at the ore docks B&B employees will perform rail welding work. Bridge welding and any other welding in the Maintenance of < (Emphasis added.)


In addition, the Organization asserts that the fabrication of booms from structural steel has customarily and traditionally been performed by B&B employees. In support t
Carrier, on the other hand, insists that there is nothing in the language of Rule 26 which could be construed as granting the exclusive right to fabricate swingloader booms to the B&B craft. Indeed, Carrier argues, the true subject of the rule is work pertaining to structures, particularly bridges and buildings. Nowhere is there any evidence that the rule encompasses the "construction, repair, maintenance or di
It is also Carrier's position that there is no longstanding, systemwide practice which would guarantee that the disputed work be assigned to B&B employees. Two prior in this dispute on the property where B&B employees built similar extensions hardly constitute a pr B&B employees probative evidence of historical exclusivity, Carrier stresses, particularly since those statements are refuted by what Carrier claims is the "common knowledge" that other employees, including Ore Dock employees (BRAC) have fabricated parts or end-items over the years from the materials listed in the employees' statements. Absent any evidence of work exclusivity either by rule or practice, Carrier submits that this claim must be denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 27571
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26704
 88-3-85-3-456

 We concur with Carrier's position that nowhere does the record in the instant case speak of B&am work or that the work was regularly assigned to them as such. Based on our reading of the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 26, it is clear that the fabrication of a boom for a swingloader is not mentioned, or do we believe that it falls within the rubric of a "structure" as that term is used in the Rule.

 The record does reflect that on two occasions, the employees performed work similar to that in question. However, we feel that this is not sufficient to show that the work Claimants herein, nor does it unequivocably commit Carrier in the future in its assignment of similar work.

 By the same token, the statements of B&B employees cannot be deemed probative evidence, lack and where Carrier has rebutted the employee's contention of exclusivity in fabricating items from th Organization has not shown that the fabrication of a swingloader boom is work reserved exclusively to its craft by rule, custom or practice.

                        A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


Attest.
        Nancy J. D v - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of September 1988.