STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Beginning March 3, 1967, outside forces performed the work of pouring a concrete floor in the car shop at Marshall, Texas. The area involved in this concrete work was 21,000 square feet. In the letter of initial claim presentation, the Carrier was advised by Assistant General Chairman Hawkes that "This is work belonging to the Bridge and Building Department employes of The Texas & Pacific Railway Company". The truth or accuracy of the aforequoted statement has never been challenged by the Carrier.
B&B forces have heretofore performed concrete work of this character and their ability to perform such work has not been challenged. In the appeal of August 30, 1967 to the Carrier's highest appellate officer we advised:
Again the Carrier failed to challenge the truth or accuracy of that statement. Hence, the Employes' statement that work of this character belongs to employes of the Bridge and Building Department remains unchallenged and undisputed.
6. The Organization did not dispute the fact that it has been a common practice to contract construction as well as repair work on this property for many years. During conference the Assistant General Chairman was again reminded that it was a common practice on this property to contract cunstvact:on ax:d repair work, and he did not deny this fact.
OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioners allege that commencing March 3, 1967 Carrier permitted outside forces to perform the work of pouring a concrete floor in the car shop at Marshall, Texas. Petitioners argue that Carrier was advised by Assistant General Chairman Hawkes, in his letter of initial claim that "this is work belonging to B & B Department Employes", and this statement was never disputed or challenged by Carrier. Petitioners further aver that Carrier rested its defense to this claim that Carter is not required to do piecemeal work, but that Carrier, after repeated requests to explain "piecemeal work", failed to explain what it was and thus abandoned said defense.
We do not agree with Petitioners that Carrier failed to challenge the statement that the work involved here belongs to B & B Department Employes. This is clearly seen in Carrier's Director of Labor Relations, O. B. Sayers letter of December 6, 1967 to the Assistant General Chairman, T. G. Hawkins, Jr., when he stated in said letter that it has for many years been the practice on Carrier's line to utilize services of construction cornpanies under such circumstances as here involved.
Examination of the Scope Rule herein shows that it is a general Scope Rule, and this Board, in a long line of awards, has therefor consistently held that the burden is upon the Petitioners herein to prove that the work in question has been exclusively performed by B & B Department Employes, system wide, by practice, custom and tradition.
The record shows that Petitioners failed to sustain said burden and therefore we must deny the claim.
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