2. Special marine equipment and skills were required, neither of which the Carrier possessed for such marine work.

3. The requirements were of an emergency nature due to potential hazards to water traffic which condition requires prompt action for correction.

4. The work involved repairing and rebuilding of structures which were damaged not by Carrier's train operation but by river traffic.

b. The Carrier has consistently contracted work of this nature and of this extent using qualified marine contractors.

6. The claim for other than the 3 named claimants is outlawed.

For the reasons outlined it is the position of the Carrier that the claim is without merit and should be denied. All basic data contained herein has been made known to the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Employes' Ex Parte Submission includes three letters as to past practice. Carrier in its Rebuttal Submission says that neither the letters nor their contents were made known to Carrier in the handling of the claim on the property. The letters are excluded from our consideration. Award 11128 (Boyd); Circular No. 1 of this Board.

The Claimants as named in the claim are:

"Bridge and Building Foremen A. A. Klinnert, W. E. Harms and J. E. Walden and the members of their respective gangs on the LaCrosse and River Division."

Carrier asserts that Section 1 (a) of Article V of the National Agreement of August 21, 1964, bars the claim as to "the members of their respective gangs." Employes urge that such Claimants have been identified by reference to their Foremen, and that the names of such Claimants are readily ascertainable. Failure to name each Claimant is hazardous procedure. In this instance we deem Award 10969 (McMillen) applicable and follow the precedent thereof:

"This Board has frequently held in interpreting the National Agreement . . . 'that Claimants need not be specifically named so long as they are readily identifiable'. In this claim there are only 3 gangs involved, and they are relatively small in number and can easily be identified by the Carrier."

The designation of Claimants is sufficient in this instance.

We turn to the merits. This is a case of contracting out work. Employes rely on a general Scope Rule (Rule 1) and a Classification of Work Rule (Rule 46 (d)). Carrier relies on non-coverage of the Agreement and past practice of contracting out such work.

The work involved is the repair of a sheer fence. The fence protects Carrier's Bridge L-4b from river traffic. The bridge is across the Mississippi River at LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The work was done with marine equipment (which Carrier does not own), including tugboats and barges, and involved some special skill peculiar to marine operation (for example, that of a river pilot).

The Employes have not sustained the burden of proving an exclusive right to the work, based upon history, custom and tradition. On the contrary, it appears that the parties have treated such work as being outside the scope of the Agreement. Award 7600 (Cluster). From the record it is clear that Carrier has contracted out similar work for years, in numerous locations and instances.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

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;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD