It may be that the driver of the truck, which has special equipment, is performing work within the scope of the Signalmen's Agreement when operating this equipment in doing T&S Department work but that does not entitle the Brotherhood to have its employes assigned to the position, the principle duties of which are not within the scope of its Agreement. There are proper methods available by which that matter can be disposed of."

It is the Carrier's position that the disputed work is not of the kind that falls within the scope of the current Signalmen's Agreement.

In the dispute that resulted in Award 5046 (Carter) a T&S Inspector used an Electric Traction truck to transport telegraph and signal material from Baldwin Tower to Lampkin Street, Marcus Hook and Bellevue. The Board found:

"The material being moved was being distributed between Signal Maintainers' stations. It was not being hauled insofar as the record shows in connection with its actual use in signal construction or maintenance work. Under the previous awards of this Division, the work in question was not the exclusive work of signalmen. Until it becomes an integral part of a signal construction or maintenance job, the signalmen have no exclusive right to its handling. Consequently, work in connection with the moving of materials to be used by signalmen at some future time is not exclusively signalmen's work. " * *."

It was said in Award 6512 (Rader) where other than Signalmen were used to handle signal materials:

"Also that the mere handling of signal materials is not signal work. Citing Award 5046."

The Organization is seeking payment of twelve hours' pay at the overtime rate, but it has never advised the Carrier of the basis for such claim. It is the Carrier's position that the claim is unmeritorious, and under any and all circumstances claim for more than four hours at pro rata rate is improper.

The claim has neither merit nor agreement support and should be denied.

The Board is requested to find in favor of the Carrier and deny the Employes' claim in its entirety.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Driving a company owned automobile a General Foreman towed a ditch digging machine from Tulsa, Oklahoma to St. Louis, Missouri. Signalmen aver that: (1) the machine had been used in Tulsa on signal work and was transported to St. Louis to be used on signal work; (2) the established practice on the property was for employes covered by the Agreement to transport ditch digging machines from one signal job to another if there was no intervening period when the machine was used by other departments; (3) the practice vests in employes covered by the Agreement, the exclusive right to the work; and (4) the transportation here involved, having been accomplished by an employe not covered by the Agreement, violated the Scope Rule.

Throughout the handling of the Claim on the property it was denied for the given reason that Carrier found nothing in the Agreement specifically assigning such equipment nor its transportation to Signalmen.

The issue is whether the work involved in transporting the machine was "work generally recognized as signal work" within the meaning of those words as used in the Scope Rule. Because the words are general in nature, Signalmen, to prevail, had the burden of proving that in past practice, in like circumstances, the transporting of the machine had been exclusively performed by Signalmen.

When, in the handling of the Claim on the property, the Carrier denied Signalmen's averment of exclusive right to the work, Signalmen was put to its proof. Signalmen failed to adduce any factual evidence to prove the averment. It, therefore, failed to satisfy the burden of proof. We will dismiss the Claim for lack of proof.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 Claim fails for lack of proof.

AWARD