(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES In DISPUTE: (
 (Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines)

(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) when it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope Rule, which resulted in the violation of Rule 70 - the Loss of Earnings Rule - by assigning the recognized signal work of installing electric switch heaters and performing work on the signal electric transmi -- all in California and all located on the Shasta Division,

 (b) Signal Foreman W. R. Anderson, Leading Signalman C. G, Mowdy, Signalmen ,7. L. Brown and R. be allowed eight (8) hours each at their respective straight time rates of pay for each of the following dates: August 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and 31, September 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1965 -- a like number of hours as the Carrier assigned employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to perform signal work, (Carrier'
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute arose when Carrier assigned other than signal
 employees to install electric switch heaters at various
 locations in California between August 16 and September 10, 1965. The electric
 switch heaters were installed to replace gas heaters. They were installed by Main
 tenance of Way Electrical Department employees.

 The claim is based on the Organization's contention that the work of installing the electric switch heaters is signal work covered by the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement and when Scope work is farmed out, signal employees covered by the Agreement should he paid for an amount of time equal to that spent by other in the performance of such work.

 Carrier counters by contending that the Scope Rule does not expressly. reserve the work herein to employees represented by the Petitioner nor is work on electric switch heaters generally recognized as signal work. It further asserts that electric switch heaters are not actuated nor controlled through the signal system nor do they have any connection with Carrier's signal system, It has been customary, Carrier also maintains, to have Maintenance of Way omployes handle the electric switch heaters.
                  Docket Number SG-16749


The Scope Rule relied on by the Organization fails to specifically enumerate the installation of electric switch heaters as belonging to Employee of the Signal Department. Consequently, to prevail the Petitioner moat show by competent evidence that by tradition, custom and practice on the property they have performed such work to the exclusion of all others.

 This Board is of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to sustain the burden thus imposed upon them. They failed to introduce sufficient evidence proving that the work in question by practice, custom, and usage has been performed by Signalmen to the exclusion of all others. Consequently, we must deer the claim.

 Our decision in this case in no way detracts from our decision in Award 13676.

 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 Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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 Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1972.


..s - .;,:~