traffic control signs at the Meclxanii_al Department parking area in Taylor Yard.

By letter dated July 3, 196? (Carrier's Exhibit "B"), Carrier's Division Superintendent denied the claim. By letter dated July 10, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "C"), Petitioner's District Chairman .gave notice that the claim would be .appealed; however, in letter of August 3, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "~D"), Carrier's Division Superintendent agreed to give the claim further investigation in light of certain contentions raised in conference, but on August 14, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "E"), Carrier's Division Superintendent confirmed denial of the claim.

By letter dated Aug-List 31, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "F"), Petitioner's General Chairman appealed the claim to Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel and by letter dated 'March 27, 1968 (Carrier's Exhibit "G"), the latter domed the claim.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claim a~;,se tvl~en. on April 25 and 26, 1967, Carrier assigned a laborer in the Mechar:cal p,rpartrneaxt, represented by a Union other than Petitioner, to install new traffic control signs and -_--e.locate others in a parking lot within Carrier's Taylor Yard in Los Angeles, California. The parking lot is used by Mechanical Department employer and is under that Department's control as to traffic flow and pa-°kiny regulations. The signs were the standard type bearing various legends such as "Stop," "Do Not Enter," etc. The signs were puuchased b;; Gamier affirmed to the posts by B&B forces but assigned to the laborer for installation. The laborer dug holes through the black top, which had been put down originally by an outside contractor, erected the signs and resuxf4ced the :area, at the base oz the sign posts.

invited to participate and to male a submission to this Board pursuant to the mandate of TCDU v Union Pacific Railroad (385 U.S. 157). That Organization filed a disclaimer of interest in the matter.

Petitioner's evidence as ,to i,ts entitlement to the work involved was limited to. Taylor Yard. This evidence was not refuted by Carrier. The evidence consisted of statements froth tour employes to the effect that the work in dispute was p·2rfarmed by them in Taylor Yard. The parties cited many cases in support of their xespeni·.re Positions. Carrier tilted 28 eases involving the same parties and the same Scot'-.: Rule all of which were denied on the ib;:nsiis that Petitioner did nct prove ystem-wide exclusivity. Petitioner also cited many cases chief among them, on this point, is Award 13334, on another property, which holds that when. Petitioner produces a prima facie case at one location the burden shifts to Caxrier to come forward with its "alleged affirmative defense." Award 1~8a72 involving the sam·u parties and the same Scope Rule holds that a violation of the agreement can be found on less than a system wide basis. Award 1579 also on the same property holds to the .contrary.

Carrier hire waited until the last step ;v. the grievance procedure before it raised the question of exclusivity. In the interest of expediting the handling of these matters on the property the matter should have been raised earlier on in the proceedings. In any vent when the qquestion was raised 1?etitioner did hat did not attempt to rebut it. Petitioner contends, under the rationale of Award 13334, that the burden of going forward with evidence that the work in dispute was done by others system-wide shifted to Carrier.

In the situation at bar Petitioner at no time tried to prove that its claim was co-extensive with the Scope of the appropriate bargaining unit as set forth in the agreement. It is endemic to the railroad industry that bargaining units arc system wide. In the process of carrying its burden bad Petitioner submitted evidence covering other part, of the system similar to that submitted with respect to Taylor Yard, Carrier's failure to dome forward with countervailing evidence would have result-ed in a finding of a Scope rule violation co-extensive with the bargaining unit which is, of course, system-wideThis Board has found Scope Rule coverage in Award No. 18967 and Award No. 15260 where Carrier failed to rebut evidence consisting of statements from employes attesting to the performance of the work at various places on the ,system. To find reservation of work at one location without at the same time finding such reservation to be system-wide would negate the very purpose of the system-wide unit. There .is no evidence on which to base a system-wide unit finding accordingly the case fails of proof. In this regard Award 19159 holds, with our approbation:

"This .Board. deems correct those awards which have held that where the Scope Rule is system wide the practice must coincide. This opinion is not arrived at merely because the majority of eases appear to adhere to that position. Rather it is cLx view that since the Scope Rule explicitly says that the Rules of the agreement apply to all subdepartment equally and without exception for a practice to change application of, ox indeed add to or modify! tine agreement it certainly must be as broad in its application as the written rules.

The parties to this agreeniont have not negotiated any local working conditions. The Scope Rule says that t'ne written rules govern the vroxking conditions of all Sub-Depaxtinents. It further 1: 2' "

On the basis of the foregoing zv~ feel constrained to -dismiss the claim far a lack of proof.

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 respec-

`bat this -Division of th·a Hcl:iusfimevt Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.: and

That the Claim should be dismissed.

AWARD Claim dismissed.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST- E. A. Killeen ,

Executive Seerdtary