(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 ( -Coast Lines -

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned or otherwise permitted other than B&B forces to repair the concrete floor in the "old wheel grinding building" at Redondo Junction, California. (System File 130-234-29).

 (2) B&B employes L. W. Adams, G. S. Cordova, J. B. Reveles, D. A. Gilchrist, E. D. Barrera, G. D. Brandon and G. G. Valenzuela each be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates because of the violation referred to in Part (1) of this claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Sheetmetal workers of Carrier's Shop Extension Forces removed
 a wheel lathe in the Redondo Junction Mechanical Department.
 The lathe was located in a 35 by 11 foot pit. After removing it the Shop Exten
 sion Forces filled, compacted, and then poured concrete to complete the process of
 restoring the floor.

 Claimants allege that the assignment of this work to employees not covered by their Agreement is a violation of Article I - Scope. The Rule reads:

I


It is apparent from the wording of the Rule that it is one of those characterized by many decisions of this Board as "general". A general scope rule will not, of itself, confer exclusive right to the performance of work. A party claiming exclusive right under a general scope rule must prove, by evidence with probative value, that it has performed the claimed work exclusively, system-wide by tradition, custom and practice. That principle is expressed in a line of cases that represents the decisive weight of authority on the question. Citation of particular cases has become superfluous. The point is too well established by the Board to require it.

 Claimants recognize, of course, the burden of proof they must meet. To meet it they assert that Carrier "has by past practice given B&B forces exclusive right to perform this work." In their submission they further assert that Carrier did not rebut that assertion. The record, however, does not support claimant on that point. Carrier did take issue with the "practice or custom" claim when it stated in a letter to the General Chairman, "...Your appeal claim is not supported by either the rules of the Foreman's and Laborer's Agreement, past practice or custom." In any event simply making an assertion does not meet the requirement that the claimant present evidence with probative value.

 The Sheetmetal Workers entered a submission which takes the position that their Agreement allocates the work in question to them. They also challenge claimants' contention that practice supports their position. According to the Sheet Metal Workers "its a common system-wide practice" for them to fill the hole left when machinery is removed.

 The claim must be dismissed. The Scope Rule is of the general type. - Claimants thus had the burden of proving an exclusive system-wide practice. They did not dp so.

 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 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 be dismissed..

                    Award Number 19494 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-18543

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:~
 Executive ecretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November 1972.