PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
 (Lake Region)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(2) Each claimant x be allowed pay at his respective pro rats rate
 for an equal proportionate share of the total number of hours
 consumed by outside forces in the performance of the work referred
 to within Part (1) of this claim.






















Exhibit "L"-September 21, 1967-Letter-Manager Labor Relations to General Chairman.




OPINION OF BOARD: The claim herein is another of a number arising between the same parties because of the Carrier contracting for the cutting and clearing of brush on the Carrier's right-of-way. In the present case the dispute involves the cutting and clearing of brush on the Carrier's rightof-way between Buffalo Junction, New York, and Conneaut, Ohio.


In recent Awards 17051 and 17059 the claims of the employes were sustained. We have carefully reviewed those Awards and do not Bad them to be palpably erroneous. In Award 17051 we held:


"The Scope Rule of this Agreement is general in its terms and the terms do not specify the work reserved to such employees. When the Scope Rule is general in nature and does not define the work to be performed by the employees listed or named, nor does it contain any job descriptions, the petitioner not only has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the work in question has been traditionally and customarily been performed by them, but also that it constitutes work which they have performed to the exclusion of others.


"The evidence presented on the property shows that the Carrier did not overcome the Organization's evidence that it had an historical, traditional, and exclusive right to clear brush and weeds from the right-of-way. Thus, the evidence did show that such work was done by the Organization to the exclusion of others.


"On the property, the Carrier's main contention was that the work came under the exception set out in Rule 52(c) which reads:




"Carrier alleged that there was not a sufficient number of employees available and those available worked as much as possible and therefore suffered no loss. The Carrier is raising an affirmative defense and has the burden to prove such defense by competent evidence. This the Carrier failed to do. Mere assertions, self-serving declarations and general statements are of no real probative value to this Board. The fact Claimants were working where Carrier had assigned them does not make them unavailable. (Awards 15497, et al.) The Carrier attempts to raise the contention that the Claimants are too indefinite to be given consideration. The Carrier was furnished a roster containing the names of the Claimants and the claim reasonably described the Employees so that they could be identified. Carrier should have no difficulty in identifying them by an examination of its records. (Awards 14672, 15333, 15497, et al.)



17100 5

Award 17059 followed substantially the same reasoning.

 The reasoning of Awards 17051 and 17059 is applicable to our present docket and the claim will be sustained.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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









Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April, 1969.

 Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U3.A.

 17100 6