STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimants, all of whom hold seniority within the Carrier's Track Department, are the foremen and members of Section Gangs A, C, D and E. Track forces have traditionally performed all work in connection with building and maintaining the Carrier's tracks.
In this case, the Carrier assigned the performance of routine trick maintenance work to C. N. Vilas Company. This work consisted of cleaning, track, removing sand, weeds, etc. and was performed by six (6) m^n who hold no seniority whatsoever within the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department. The claimants were ava-table and would have wfflingly performed this work if the Carrier had so desired.
The assignment of this track work to outside forces was in violation of the scope rule which reads in pertinent part:
As suggested by us, we discussed this claim on February 19, 1969, at which time the general chairman would not or could not present any basis for the claim. We confirmed the conference on March 14, 1969, as follows:
The next thing we heard about this claim was nine months later, when on November 14, 1969 we received a copy of Mr. Crotty's letter dated November 13, 1969 to the Board that he "intends" to file the dispute with your Board. In paragraph (2) of the notice of intent to file, the union gives as a starting date of this claim August 15, 1968, which is not the same as the 66 days retroactive date originally presented.
No work as alleged was ever performed by the employes of C. N. Vilas & Company and none at all in cleaning yards on Section C was performed prior to September 1, 1968.
OPINION OF BOARD: On or about September 1, 1968, the Carrier utilized employes of the C. N. Vilas and Company who were regularly employed for the purpose of icing cars and related work, to perform track cleaning work in Carrier's yards. Claim was filed on behalf of Carrier's track department forces, whose traditional and customary duties of maintenance of tracks and roadbed include the cleaning of tracks as hetc involved.
In view of the conflicting evidence and the failure of both sides to present this Board with competent evidence upon which to render a just decision as to ;.he actual merits, we will render neither a sustaining nor a denial Award, but shall dismiss this claim because of a lack of the requisite body of evidence essential for a sound adjudication of the basic issues.