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 re 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
As third party in interest the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was advised of the pendency of this dispute and filed a submission with the Board.
The Organization maintains that in January 7, 1987, Carrier assigned an Electrical Department employe, to perform work on roadway machines in carrier's shop in Brownville Junction, Maine. The Organization alleges that this maintenance work has customarily, traditionally, and historically been performed by Form 1 Award No. 29652
members of the Maintenance of Way Department. It contends that Claimant, a furloughed Maintainer Grade 1, was entitled to the position by virtue of his seniority and was qualified and available to perform the work.
The organization cites Rule 45.2, a Classification of Work Rule, which lists the title of Roadway Equipment Mechanic 9th equivalent of the Canadian title of Maintainer Grade 1), in support of its argument. It contends that it was the parties' intent that certain work would accrue to employes holding seniority in specified classifications. The Organization believes that Carrier has failed to prove a practice permitting Electrical Department employes to do the work.
Carrier maintains that all machine repair work in Maine and Vermont has consistently and historically been assigned to Electricians and that for some forty years, roadway machine repairs have been carried out by Road Electricians and Electricians' Helpers at Brownville Junction without objection. Claimant, who qualified as an Electrician in 1980, was promoted to the permanent full time Electrician's position in Brownville Junction that year. According to Carrier, Claimant performs no work on mechanical equipment. He works on roadway machines and electrical equipment in buildings and comes under the direction of the Division Engineer.
Carrier notes that prior to his layoff, Claimant, who initially worked as an Electrician Helper, assisted with electrical maintenance on carrier's property and repaired disabled motorized railroad track equipment. After his layoff, Claimant was recalled when needed to work various positions. At some point, Claimant applied for and was awarded the position of Maintainer, Grade 1. It appears from the record that at that juncture, a dispute arose over the work in question here.
There is no dispute that Roadway Equipment Mechanics are listed in this Rule, but this Board has held on numerous occasions in the past that a Classification of Work Rule does not in itself necessarily grant work to a named classification exclusively. (See, for example, Third Division Awards 19921, 27806.) Absent a finding that the work at issue accrues only to a specific classification, it is necessary to consider whether it has been performed solely by one group by custom, history, or practice. In this instance, the Organization has failed to present sufficient proof that it has. Rather, there appears to be ample evidence that for some thirty-five or forty years, the work in question here has been done by Electrical Department employes.