(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 STATE:-IE\T OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned shop craft employes to perform the work of cleaning and pumping water out of the elevator pits in the Union Station Subway on June 3, 1966. (System File 013-293-16)

 (2) Mason and Concrete Mechanics John Kedge, Elmer Luecke and John '.r,aila each be allowed 8 hours' pay at their pro rata rates because of the violation referred to w
f-P?."IIr,S OF BOARD: This claim arose on June 3, 1966, when Carrier assigned the
 work of cleaning and pumping water out of the elevator pits
 in the Union Station Subway to Shop Craft Employes. The Organization vigorously
 contends that the work involved in this dispute is exclusively reserved to the
 Claimants by practice, custom and tradition. The Scope Rule involved in this
 dispute is general in nature in that it does not specifically describe the in-

 vn1ved work. Carrier, in denying the claim; asserts that the involved work has n,·ver been the exclusive work of the Mason and Concrete Mechanics; that other than Mason and Concrete Mechanics have also drained water from and cleaned elevator pits involved in the instant dispute over the yearsl that other than Mason and Concrete Mechanics ha ele..ator pits at other locations on the property over the years; and that for the reason that Claimants were fully employed at the time, they have no basis for a monrrorv allowance.

 Since Rule 1 which is the Scope Rule is of the general type and does not desrril~e or set out the work of pumping water from an elevator pit, we must dettrmine to whom the w
·-stem wide basis on this property. The record in this dispute discloses that the )r?anization has failed to maintain its burden of proof that Claimants had an exClusi"·.- rig no r,m^etent evidence presented by the Organizat·on which would support their position chat C ,tl,,·r crafts and classes of employes on this property. Where work may properly be assigne,t to two or more crafts, an assignment to one does not have the effect of makin^ 'r the exclusive work of that craft in the absence of a plain language in-

 dicnLieg such an intent. Nor is the fact that work at one point is assigned to one cr:.ii: for a long period of time of controlliig importance which it appears that such work was assigned to different crafts at different points within the scope of the

 agreement. See Award 7031 (Carter). Based on the record, we must conclude that
 the in·n·olved work was not the exclusive work of Mason and Concrete Mechanics on< this property.


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






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive e TecFretary


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