Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The dispute centers upon the Carrier's use of Carman and Mechanics in Charge (MIC) to perform electrical work. The Organization alleges Carrier violation of Rule 58 and Rule 30 in permitting non-Electricians to perform protected work. Rule 58 is clear that "Electricians will perform all other work generally recognized as electrical workers work..." and Rule 30 states that "None but electricians... shall do electricians' work as per the scope and classification of work rule."

The Organization argues that the work was clearly Electrician's work. The work complained of was:

"tying on and disconnecting of all electrical 480 volt cables from locomotives and suburban commuter cars, the application and termination of all 480 volt standby power and the proper change-over of Automated Train Stop and Train Control to the cab cars."

Throughout this dispute on the property, the Organization argued that this work was a part of Job No. 708 duties and required electrical training and knowledge. The use of those foreign to the Agreement removed overtime from each of the Claimants.

The Carrier admits that Carmen and NBC's did perform the third shift electrical work supra, at the Chicago Passenger Terminal. It argues however, that its actions were permitted under Article V, the Incidental Work Rule, as amended. The Carrier defends its position by noting that the work performed did not exceed two hours; did not require special tools; and did not require special training. It was therefore permitted work which did not violate the Agreement.

The Board has studied this record with attention to the Rules, the tasks performed, Article V and the various unrebutted assertions. We conclude that this instant work was part of the regular assigned duties of third shift Electricians position, Job No. 708. The facts are that the Carrier assigned other than Electricians to perform the work on September 26, 1993 in the absence of the incumbent.

The Organization in its Ex Parte Submission and as strongly argued before this Board states "that the Employes' have submitted by evidence of probative value a prima facie case..." In reaching our conclusion we have studied the record with the

understanding that the Organization carries the ultimate burden of proof. The Carrier defended its actions arguing that the instant work was permitted work of MIC's and within Article V. The Organization must provide substantial probative evidence in this record that the Carrier's defense fails.

The Carrier has maintained it violated no Rule in that its assignment was permissible. We have further studied the facts to determine if such work was less than two hours and required no special tools or training. Carrier record of work performed on the night when the third shift Electrician's position was blanked is three quarters of an hour. This stands unrebutted. After Carrier asserted that the work performed required no special tools or special training, the Organization provided no substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Our study of the work performed, guided by what has been considered in prior Awards as a special tool or knowledge fails to prove a Carrier violation of the Agreement (see particularly Second Division Award 12776; Public Law Board No. 5479, Award 2). Accordingly, the burden of proof has not been met.

AWARD