Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7295
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7150
 2-MP-CM-'77



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings:
The Second 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 employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

On December 30 and 31, 197+, and on January 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1975, painters of the McCormick Painting Company were used to paint the overhead cranes, jacks and electrical switch and fuse boxes in the Annual House and the Diesel Ramp facilities at the Carrier's Pike Avenue Shops located in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Organization contends that the work given to the outside painters was Carmen's work under Rule 117 and contends that the work has always been performed by Carmen Painters. The Carrier contends that the dispute is barred by the time limit rules; must be denied for a complete failure of proof on the question of past practice; or must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to follow the procedures for resolving disputes on "subcontracting" under Article II of the September 25, 196 Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 7295
 Page 2 Docket No. 7150
 2-MP-CM-177

 Concerning the Carrier's contention that the failure of the Organization to progress the claim concerning B & B employes painting the overhead crane in the Blacksmith Shop should serve as a basis to preclude the instant claim: the Organization contends that this is nonsense. We find the Carrier's position to be erroneous.

 The Garments Classification of Work Rule states in pertinent part as set forth by Mr. J. D. Hicks in his letter of February 10, 1975:





The Organization submits the following statement signed by four Carmen Painters as evidence:





The Organization submits a statement from Cayman Painter B. W. Wigginton which states:




Form 1 Award No .7295
 Page 3 Docket No. 7150
 2-MP-CM-'77
 "The Carmen Painters have always painted the overhead
 cranes in the Pike Avenue Shop complex. I painted the
 overhead cranes in 1950 and in 1960. In 1966, I also
 painted the overhead cranes in the shop complex and the
 B&B employes operated a so-called crane or cherry picker
 to lift us (C. 0. Clark and myself) to paint the cranes.
 The B&B employes did not paint the overhead cranes at
 this or any other time.
 Since 19+6 when I was hired by the Missouri Pacific
 Railroad, I know of no time that the B&B employes have
 ever painted the overhead cranes in the Pike Avenue
 Shop complex." (Employes Exhibit "M")

 Rule 117,'the Classification of Work Rule, quoted in part above, does not set forth the work of painting overhead cranes as being that of Carmen Painters. The Organization states in Employes' Exhibit A, set forth above, that Carmen Painters "have performed this work for almost thirty (30) years". The Organization, it would appear, is relying on "the all other work generally recognized as painters work" language of Rule 117 as Agreement support for its contentions before this Board. It is well settled that in order to establish exclusive rights to work not otherwise expressly reserved to the Organization, the Organization rust prove the work belongs to them by past practice on a system-wide basis. The statements made in Employes Exhibit "I-1", and "M" relate only to the local practice and do not prove the requisite system-wide practice. Further, the Carrier disagrees with the statements of the Employes as follows:


It is well settled that this Board does not resolve conflicts in evidence. Yet in this case, since the Organization offers no evidence of a systemwide practice, the Organization's case based on the practice of the parties under Rule 117 must fail.

 Argument was made before the Board that all painting of tools and equipment in the Locomotive and Car Departments belong to the Carmen Painters (Organization's Brief, pp. 3, 4, 5 and 6) Carrier contended on the property as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 7295
 page 4 Docket No. 7150
 _ 2-MP-CM-'77
 "Nowhere in Rule 117 are Carmen assigned the painting
 of buildings or appurtenances thereto. As the jacks,
 switch boxes and fuse boxes are affixed to walls,
 they are not moveable and constitute appurtenances to
 any building in which they are found. The overhead
 cranes are appurtenances inasmuch as they are confined
 to operation upon a beam or rail which is an integral
 part of the building in which it is located. Further
 more, the crane itself is not portable because of its
 size. This work would have been assigned to B & B
 employes who usually paint buildings and appurtenances
 had they been available." (Carrier's Exhibit No. 12)

 The Carrier thus contends that the items painted were "building and appurtenances" not tools and equipment. The major contention of the parties as handled on the property and its Submission to this Board and the evidence submitted~to the Board dealt with the practice of the parties, i.e., the statements of Employes Exhibit "I-1 and 2" and Exhibit "M" and the Carrier's contrary statement (Carrier Exhibit 12). The ascertions on the overhead crane being part of the "building and appurtenances" was made by the Carrier on the property (Carrier Exhibit 12) and in its Submission to the Board (Carrier's Sub., p. 12). No proof that the overhead crane was "a tool or equipment" (Organization's Brief, p. 5) was offered by the Organization on the property

 or in its Submission to the Board. While the Organization argues to the

 contrary in its Rebuttal p. 12, it is insufficient to satsify the burden of -
 proof, which is on the Organization. We find only that the Organization has
 failed to satisfy its burden of proof in view of counterveiling factors which
 are; (1) it is uncontested that the rails are attached to the top of the
 walls of the shop and are permanently part of the building (Employes Rebuttal,
 p. 12), 2) the crane itself is not portable because of its size (Carrier's
 Exhibit 12), 3) the past assignment of the painting of overhead cranes on
 the property to B & B employes in the Electric Shop in 1972, in the demount
 house in 1973 (Carrier's Exhibit 12) and in the Blacksmith's Shop on dates
 in July and August 197+ (Carrier's Exhibit 2); the Carrier has contended
 throughout the handling of this case that assignments made to B & B employes
 to paint the overhead cranes was based on the theory of such cranes being
 "building and appurtenances". The matter should have been handled by the
 Organization on the property and in its Submission to the Board with evidence
 and proofs on the technical aspects of the overhead crane and the manner
 in which it is attached to the buildings. Assertions alone, at the rebuttal
 stage of the processing of the case, is not sufficient to sustain its burden
 of proof.

 Since the Organization has not met its burden of proving an exclusive right to the work in question, we must deny this claim.
 Form 1 Award No. 7295
 Page 5 Docket No. 7150
 2-MP-CM-'77




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April, 1g77.
 *MOW