Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD Award No. 8016
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7513
 2-scL-Ew-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
 (
 ( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Compar~y

 Dispute: Claim of Emnloyes:











F3.nd:mnLs :

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the wnole record and ah_ the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the er-nploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and empa.oya within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193~.

 This Division of the Adjus"Ment Board has jurisdidtion over the dispute involved herein.

On Monday, September 15, 175, at the West-Jacksonville, Shops, Jacksonville, Florida, at about 7 P.M., a power failure occurred and it was necessary to start the emergency engine on the power car to furnish standby power on Office Car 310. These passenger train cars are now used as office cars, and for transportation of executives of the Carrier when they travel by rail. They are kept on the passenger-business car track. At the time and place in question, Carrier's Supervisor called trip situation an emergency, and said Supervisor W. L. Davis started the engine on the power plant car by pushing a button, then plugged in a cable to furnish service to the office car, stating that this was all that was necessary to be done and that it took only a few minutes.
 Form 1 Award No. 8016
 Page 2 Docket No. 7513
 2-scz-Ew-'79

 This claim by Carrier is bitterly disputed by Employes., who cite instructions for placing passenger business cars on stand-by,, as required, when the cable is plugged in: (1) an inspection to determine that the motor alternator circuit-breaker drops out, removing load from same; (2) push start button on the generator and inspect to see that the reverse current relay closes line cent actor, aid inspect, test and check to assure that the generator regulator is properly protecting the generator and the storage batteries, and (3) inspect and test to see that cable is plugged in on side of car that the: electrical load is transferred to, when power plant is shut down.

 Employes claim this 5.s electrical woxh demanding, under appropriate work rues, the calling in of electricians, and that Supervisor Davis., in taking it upon himself to do this ~rOrl:, was violatir.V_ rxvmierous quoted worl> rules, 'chaff for employes, it eGane under the descriptive term "And. all other work generally i2co-11a7ed as electricians' work"o

 Carrier strongly denies this claim, in its contentions and xi.Ll' ngs alJ_ the way from the co.,_plaint by the Vocal to the Nationall Railroad Adjustment Board, contending that it is a simple operation,, done by many types of personnel, including :331apervisors, not assigned to any craft, by contract or by custom.

 Most vehemently contested fact between Carrier and Employes vas whether this type of work had been recognized as electricians' work in the past. Employer contended at every level of appeal, that this work was recognized by the parties up to this point as coming under the signed agreement between Carrier and the Union Organization as belonging to the Electricians.

 Rule 93 of the basic agreement between the parties, titled "Classification of Electricians` describes electricians' work as follows:


Form l Award No. 8016
 Page 3 Docket No. 7513
 2-sCD-EW-' 79
 "supports; maintaining, inspecting and installing third
 rail and cables for third rail that carry current to or
 from a third rail and track rail; pipe lines or conduits
 for these cables; bonding of third rail or cables, and
 all other work generally recognized as electricians' work.
 (Mechanical Department electricians will install and
 remove radio and radio equipnent an locomotives; and
 cabooses.)" (Italics mine.)

 This definition does not speci_~ically list the supplying of standby electrical service to power plant cars, and applying, service to passenger lousiness cars as electricians' z-rork, but Employes ' position is that such work is covered by the phrase ' ~4nd all other work generally recognized as electricians' work,"

 Imployes state that Carrier haa, up until this case, "Called or notified claimants for overtime vTorh of placing said passenger cars on electrical standby service" and has "Assigned claz-ants to perform all electrical work on the passenger business car repay tracks at West -Js,cksonville Facility". "It has never been a practice for Supervisors to perform wor!E_ or. this property;" "Up until this incident, Carr:_er had always recognized this type work on these business--passenger cars 'As work generally recognized as electricians'

 work"'When Supervisor Davis connected up the business-passenger cars with the power, he called an electrician from the roundhouse to take over and continue operating the standby power plant as long as the regular power source was not available. This is the point of strong contention between the parties; that these particular business-passenger cars were under the jurisdiction, for work, of the electricians complaining here, and by cal_i.ing an electrician from the roundhouse who stayed on the job and got overtime compensation, their contract was ignored, ,heir rights violated, and their contract work given to others.

 In controverting Employes' contention, Carrier states that "your working agreement has (not) been violated,"; this service "Has historically been performed by forces readily available; this work is not assigned exclusively to any craft by agreement or' otherwise".

 Carrier claims: "Search of Carrier's records reveals that no such claim as this has ever been ,paid." (Employes contend that claims have been paid due to Supervisors performing work on this property), but Carrier answers "Carrier states emphatically that no claim similar to the present dispute has ever been paid on this property by Carrier's highest Officer of Appeal".

 There era other points of disagreement between the parties, but we think those quoted are determinative of and control this Board's action in this case.
 Form 1 Award Ido. 8016
 Page 4 Docket No. 7513
 2-scz-Fw-'79

 There are many decisions by both the Second and Third Divisions of the Board that the Claimants have the burden of proving with probative evidence, every essential element of their claim when the Carrier disputes the clan. The burden is on the Employes to prove historically and customarily that they, exclusively, have performed the work at issue under the general terms of the work agreement, where the specific work is not spelled out, but comes under the general description of _elecarieal work. Carrier has disputed their every claim on this point. The Board could wish for more light an the subject; we have a head to head dispute between the parties as to who has and who has not done this type of work under this specific contract in the past, but no work records were produced by either party to show who was right and who was in error. The writer does not write this Opinion as determinative of the question, but only of this specific claim on this Docket. In event the question arises again, the writer sv.gs~-Bests that the parties produce the work record's to show who are correct i n their con~,ent:i_ons.

 We cannot supply that evidence for either io,rty, and absent it, the relief sought is not avail~.:.b? a to claiz^ants. This is a long and well settled rule of the Board, so well settled that copious quotations from the many adjudicated cases ~rouJ_d develop nothing new, but only en:.uxabe:c and lengthen this record.

 The settled Rules of the Board require, under this state of the record, that the claim be denied.

    Claim denied,


                          HAT IOIVA.L RAILROAD ADJUSTNLETIT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

                      G-~'_~__~


By ~~ __

    -dose arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at hicago, Illinois, this Ist day of August, 1979.