f =_ARIIEu _- Brotherhood of Maintenance of=Way _Emploves _
 f0 and
 DISPUTE: Burlinaton Northern Railroad Company--. _

 'STATEMENT "1. The Agreement was violated whentheCarrier used
 OF CC4_1171;GroLAAp2 Machine OperatorT._Tateto perform
 Sectionman's work on January 25. `?6. 27. 228. 29.
 February 1 and 2 and March 1, 2, v and 4. 1982.

I_.II. I.,l o l t.J' s:

Uo:jii the whole record, after hearino. the:.- Board finds that the oar I:xC--F; herein- are Carri.or and Employees wifFin the meanina of iJ-~e Railway Labor Art. ·ts aim-nded. and that this Board is duly con::tituted under Public Law F9-4ba end has .jurisdiction of the


parties and the subiec t. uiatter. -

 Claim.znt Kno>: was the Sectionman in the 1'r-acJ:: subdeoartment.with -
 ~:ena.oritv on Hay ._, 19 55. At the time of the incidents involved
 1n thi<S pisputLe. he was3 fUr10l.tahed as a result of force

·r_ductIun~. hlr. Tate was a Groue 2 Machine Oper=ator within the Roadwav Eauipment subdeoartment on the dates in Question. The record indicatrs th~.t c:t, the dates at issue- herein. the machine

which Mr. Tote had been operating was in ooerable due to
 mechanical problems. On those dates Carrier assigned Mr. Tote to

 he lo and

 from swltches

 From. The

 Oruanization insisted that Claimant was the senior

 sectionman and should have been recalled to clean the
 thin switch6s instr_>ad of it bvlna assigned to Mr. Tote.

 3 N c0o -c0s

within the seniority district which Claimant was

 dispute herein was triggered by this action since the

 furlouahr_·d

 snow from

 Petitioner argues that Sectionmen

 rremnmnu snow 9rrim the r iaht nyo f 7ccuar way and

 Operator to

 f r- ac. 4:

 pe.·rform

 work and the

 Sectionman's work

 was a violation of the (-lurc:ernent. Thus

 are assit7ned to the activi.t:v of

 way. This= is clearly hlairrtc:nance

 assianrno-=nt of 41 Mac hif I(.-,

 s under such circumstance-

 it, is the Oraanizat.ion s

 position t ha l the Carrier -violated the Agreement when it:

 crer-mWted utio_r- thin Track subdepartinent employees to perform tTie
 work o7 Broom reamoval, which is - -~ alleged was to be perior-med by
 Track. subdeparlment emplovecas. °- - °°--°

 Carrier notes that

 his group

 Mr. Tote was paid the higher rate of nay of

 per-forming the work of snow removal together with ttie

 Sectionmen' s croup. Further. the work of -- removing snow was = a
 temporary e>:vedient while Mr. Tote's machine was beinu. reoaared
 and was not a permanent assi.anment. or even an assit7nment oT 30
 a ~ ~~ ~Y 3N ea- l~5

 days duration. Carrier further maintains that the work of
 cleaning -snow- from switches is not oenerallv recognized as -
 enclusive work of any particular class or craft of employees.

 The: Board is constrained to note that the Organization is taking
 the position that not only is snow removal work reserved
 Fexclusivelv for emplovevs of the Maintenance of Way cateuorv but
 .-also within that group. exclusively reserved to Track
 subdeoartmont only by historical systemwide exclusivity. Such
 evidence. however. is not in the record. Petitioner has failed to
 indicate that the work of snow removal belongs exclusively to any
 class of emolovees. much less the Track- subdeoar-tment oroup.
 Fur they , there is no rule support for the position that. the work:
 in question belongs to this Claimant herein. In addition. the
 Board must observe that there is nothino in Rule 9 which requires -
 Carrier to recall an employee for temporary activity such as that
involved in this dispute. gneQ;,.: 9 provides that, a furloughed ejAV
 employee will be called back to service in seniority order when
 new positloas of more than 30 days duration are established or
 when vacancies-of more than 30 calendar days duration occur.
 Neither such circumstance obtained in this disoute. The board
 must conclude that the Claimant herein had no- recall rights to
 clean snow for the several days involved. arid even if this work
 was exclusively Track subdeparLment work. which it was not. there
 is no merit to the Claim and it must be denied.

                6 - - --- -


Carrier Membe
 ~ - - ~- V~, 9 r~

 St. Paul, Minnesota

 198£3

 Claim denied.

 1. M. Liebmrman. Neutral-Chairman

 [_..H-y- Funk. __
 Employee Member D# SS ea v711