Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11614
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11469-T
 88-2-87-2-110
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Soo Line Railroad Company violated the current agreement, particularly Rule 2, when it assigned Telex Corporation personnel on April 21 and 22, 1986, to perform test work on the switchboard at the Miller Davis Building and the switchboard at Soo Line Building.

 2. That, accordingly, the Soo Line Railroad should compensate the Claimant Keith Fischer for ten (10) hours at the rate of time and one half.

 FINDINGS:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier and the 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.

The Organization claimed a violation of Rule #2 when the Carrier assigned the Supervisory Engineer and an outside contractor to repair and test a switchboard at the Carrier's Soo Line building located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Rule #2 is reproduced below:


Form 1 Award No. 11614
 Page 2 Docket No. 11469-T
 88-2-87-2-110
 lated equipment used for communication or control, telephone
 dial switching equipment, radio transmitter, receivers and
 related equipment used for communication or control, hot box
 and dragging equipment detectors; closed circuit television
 camera, receivers and recorders; 'data' sets and transmis
 sion circuit; wires, cables, conduit, and antennas used for
 above equipment."
 The Organization claimed that Rule #2 is clear and since there was a
 lost opportunity for work, the claim of 10 hours at time and one-half is appro
 priate, and the Organization cited a number of awards to bolster their position.
 The Organization noted their members are now doing the work and, therefore, the
 Carrier concedes that the work belongs to the International Brotherhood of Elec
 trical Workers members. The Organization also contended that it did not receive
 the letter informing it of the subcontract. Since it is undisputed on the prop
 perty that a supervisor perform the work, the Organization claimed its claim
 should be upheld in its entirety.

 The Board noted that the ARASA was notified for a response to the matter in this docket. The Organization declined to intervene and file a submission as noted in their response dated January 12, 1988.

 The Carrier argued that the IBEW members are supervised by an electronic engineer. The work was corrective testing on a new system and a new installation that was installed initially by the contractor which was the Telex Corporation. The Carrier argued that the supervisor may assist the contractor to work out the problems from the original installation. The Soo Line is obligated by contract with Telex, and the Carrier noted the Organization's members assisted where applicable. The Carrier further contended that its employees had no expertise in order to correct this problem and, in any event, the work is not exclusive to the IBEW. The Carrier stated that, through its Exhibit A, it gave notice on February 13, 1986 in accordance with Article II of the September 25, 1964 Agreement that it intended to subcontract the work in question; and since the Organization did not respond within ten days, the Carrier had the right to subcontract the work.

 The Board finds that Rule #2 cited above placed the testing of all communication switchboards under the jurisdiction of the Organization. There is no showing that any other organization could claim this work under their scope rule. The Carrier raised arguments with respect to Article II - Subcontracting, which is part of the September 25, 1964 Agreement. This Agreement provides for the right to subcontract work when skilled manpower or essential equipment is not available on the property. It is apparent from the record that the type of work in question, that is the troubleshooting of the new switchboard installation, was outside of the skill level of the IBEW members that the Carrier had available to it. The Carrier argued that in accordance with this Agreement, they informed the General Chairman of the pending subcontract at which time the Organization would have ten days in which to respond. This letter was dated February 13, 1986. The Board realizes that it is difficult for the Organization to prove they did not receive this letter. However, in
 Form 1 Award No. 11614
 Page 3 Docket No. 11469-T
 88-2-87-2-110

 the absence of such proof the Board must assume it was sent by normal means and has value. As noted in Second Division Award 11613, the letter covers work to be performed in the Miller-Davis Building. The claim covers that work and work performed in the Soo Line building. The original letter of claim dated May 18, 1986 does not establish the exact time spent at each facility and the burden is on the Organization to do so. The Board finds the letter to the Organization dated February 13, 1986 to be valid and in accordance with the 1964 Agreement. Therefore, the claim will be denied in its entirety.






                    01


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of December 1988.