Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29143
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29054
 92-3-89-3-487
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gerald E. Wallin 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 three (3) TCU Ore Dock Control Operators instead of B&B Mechanics to perform cleaning and preparation work incidental to sandblasting and painting of the stacker at the Duluth Lakehead Pellet storage facility on June 14, 1988 (Claim No. 20-88).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, furloughed B&B Mechanics S. W. Heskin, J. C. Lee and R. D. Haedrich shall each be allowed pay for five (5) hours at the B&B Lakehead Storage Mechanic straight time rate of pay as well as the concomitant vacation and other benefits lost based on said hours."

 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 employes 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.

This Claim presents the somewhat novel question whether the precise same work which does not violate the Agreement when performed in one context by members of a different union can be violative of the instant parties' Agreement when performed by
In May 1988, Carrier gave notice of its intention to contract out the surface preparation and painting of the "stacker" at its Duluth, Minnesota, facilities. The stacker is a large piece of mobile equipment which moves by means of wheels on rails. It travels alongside a feed conveyor from which it receives taconite pellets. By means of its operator controlled booms, conveyors and other mechanisms The stacker is operated by Ore Dock employees.
 Form 1 Award No. 29143
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29054
 92-3-89-3-487

 In preparation for painting by the contractor, Carrier assigned certain preliminary work to be d the IBEW, were assigned to remove obsolete conduit and wire. Ore Dock employees, represented by the had accumulated around the various conveyor transfer points. B&B mechanics, represented by the instant Organization, were assigned to clean up oil and grease that had accumulated under the luffing hoist gearbox.

 Damages for the preparatory work performed by the electricians has not been sought as part of the instant Claim. Only damages for the work done by the Ore Dock employees is claimed. This work involved three employees for five hours each.

 It is undisputed that the Ore Dock employees routinely do the work of cleaning out the accumulated taconite pellets in normal operations of the stacker. The Organization has not and does not now claim such work to be a violation of its Agreement with Carrier. Indeed, the General Chairman wrote, in correspondence on the property, "I whole heartly [sic] agree the Ore Dock employees clean for the salvage of taconite pellets."

 Stripped to its essentials, the position argued on the property by the Organization is that the disputed work, which is properly performed by TCU employees in normal operations, became transformed into work exclusively reserved to B&B mechani the stacker for painting. The Organization argues that all work of cleaning or preparation incidental to painting is reserved by Rules 1, 2, 26 and Supplement No. 9 as well as oy custom and practice.

 The Carrier concended that none of the Rules cited by the Organization reserve the work to the O work was allocated to t^e craft that normally performs the work.

 Rules 1 (Scope), 2 (Seniority) and 26 (Classification of Work) have been previously reviewed by the Board. Several prior Awards have found these provisions to be general Rules which do not grant exclusive rights to the performance of specific ty 18471, 19921, 19969 and 27806. The evidence in the record also clearly shows that the TCU members are the only Carrier employees who have performed the disputed taconite pellet removal in the past.





Form 1 Award No. 29143
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29054
 92-3-89-3-487
























The Organization argued that the stacker is not specifically listed among the equipment to be maintained by the ore dock employees, therefore its maintenance belongs to the B&B mechanics. The record in this matter is clear, however, that removal or salvaging of taconite pellets, at least in routine operations, has not been interpreted to constitute maintenance work within the meaning of Supplement No. 9. Moreover, by express provision, Supplement No. 9 does not grant exclusive rights to work.

 The foundation underlying the Organization's position is the purpose of the work. Distilled to its essence, the Organization says that when the purpose of the work changed from normal operations to preparation for painting, only B&B mechani this would mean that B&B mechanics had exclusive jurisdiction to all work once the objective became to ready the stacker for painting.
 Form 1 Award No. 29143
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29054
 92-3-89-3-487

 This Board has several problems with the Organization's position. First, there is no evidence in the record that the parties, by Agreement provision or by practice, intended that the precise same work would be violative or non-violative of hinging on the purpose of the work. Second, there is no evidence that the ore dock employees did not actually salvage the taconite pellets removed. The General Chairman agrees that salvaging of pellets does not violate the Agreement. Finally, the Organ Organization's all-encompassing view of preparation work, the removal of obsolete conduit and wire h preparation for painting than was the removal of taconite pellets. Yet, the Organization does not claim for the work done by the electricians.

 In light of these concerns, the prior precedent applicable to cited Rules, and the evidence of normal practice, we do not find that the Organization has satisfied its b to perform the disputed work. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that Carrier has violated the Agreement.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: _

      'Nancy J.11y -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1992.