Frederick R. 'Blackwell, Referee


      (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                  (Illinois Central Railroad Company


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


      k'I) The Carrier violated the Agreement and practice thereunder when it discontinued using section laborers to clean cars at West Yard, Jackson, Mississippi and assigned of its agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. (System file LA-64-T-67/Case No. 498).


      (2) Section Laborers Racy Brown and Aaron Arthur each be allowed pay at their straight time rate for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man hours expended by other forces in nerforming the work referred to in Part (1) of this claim, beginning on March 16, 1967 and continuing thereafter for each day that this violation continues to exist except that, on days when there ,are furloughed section laborers, the monetary payment shall be made to the senior furloughed section laborer.


      OPINION OF BOARD: This is a Scope claim wherein the disputed work is the cleaning

      of cars at West Yard, Jackson, Mississippi, and wherein section laborers claim such work belongs to them, but has been assigned to employees outside their Agreement


      Claimants Racy Brown and Aaron Arthur (or furloughed section laborers) seek an award at their straight time rate for an equal proportionate share of the man hours expended by non-covered employees in performing such work, beginning on March 16, 1967 and continuing so long as the alleged violation exists.


      On October 7, 1971, the Board gave notice of this dispute to the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline


                            FACTS OF RECORD


      For thirty (30) years prior to March :(6, 1967 section laborers perforr~d the car-cleaning work at West Yard, --'ackson, Mississippi. For the last seucntpen (17) of those thirty (30) years, the Claimants herein (Brown and Art';iilr) performed such work.


      On March 16, 1967, and continuing thereafter, the Carrier assigned the car-cleaning work to clerical forces (freight house and station employees) who arc outside the Carrier's Agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Lmnloyr·es.


i
                          Award Number 19516 Page 2

                          )-~cket Number `!'W-18379


      ,In tha -roper t:- t:.c darri·r P.sscrted that Claimants were reassignc~ ~, their section gang becau·-.e th-· .,tore .i~:eded for section work and rhar frei^ht house and station porter lab--, avaiianle and not needed at other l"carions, ,~r· assigned to perform the ~:ar--i·-aping ~4ork. Carrier also asserted that s1ich work is not exclusively assignee: ,:o any one craft and, in addition, _hat Claimants did not sustain any pay losses. 'Clie Carrier expressly raised the "~=xclusivity" defense, namely, chat, in order for claimants to prevail, they must prove that the disputeiwork was excl.is-.veL·- p-r,ormed by coverna emolovees on a s·,st,1,1-.aid basis and not just at a narti~ul:r l.: cafe,


        The Clai^rants did n>t cff~r e:·icence to prove a sy.s:em-wide practice, nor did Carrier -er evidence I- disorov: such practice.


              The applicable Scope Rule reads as fellows:


              "Sf,OPr


              This schedule governs hours of ->ervice and working conditions ;;f al: employees i.^. the Mairtennnce of Way and Structure Department, except:


                    (a) Signrl Depart^ent employees.

                    (b) Cler-'4cal forces,

                    (c) "Engineering :ore^s.

                    (d) Scale Department employees,

                    le) Water Works Foremen, r,·.pair men and helpers.

                    (fl Telephone and Telegraph Maintenance employees.

                    (g) bridge Inspectors assigned to more 7han one division.

                    (h) Supervisory forces above the rank cf foremen.

                      (i) Teams and drivers, owners of teams, or men placed in charge of teams by owners.

                      (i) Any orher emplo-;ees (pendiru final decision) over whom there is jurisdictional dispute.

                    rk) Indi-iduals paid less than ($301 thirty dollars

                    per month for special service which takes only

                    part .c their time from .,utside employment or business.

                    (1) Di-.rision Gardeners."


                          tILL~NC=S .:;1 PETITIONER'S CONTENL'TONS


      It is undisputed that the cqr-:-Leaning work had been performed by section laborers for thirty ~ had performed the ·!rork for the last =Pventeen (17) (,f those thirty (30) years. It is also clear that the _"_-')DP ~?1rie in ouestion does not specifically reserve the disputed work to the complaia:n; employees, but is of a t"pe characterizPd as general in nature.


z
                    Award Number 19516 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-18379


A host of Board decisions hold that, where such a general Scope Rule contrcls, the Petitioner, in order to prevail, must prove that the work in issue has been traditionally and customarily performed by covered employees on a system-wide basis to the exclusion of all other employees. This so-called exclusivity" rule is based on the rationale that the Agreement covers an entire 6ystem in scope and application.

 In the instant case the Petitioner did not offer evidence to prove "exclusivity" on a system-wide basis, and instead, chose to rely on several prior Board awards to support its contentions. We have studied these awards carefully, or. on their face, they would appear to support Petitioner's contentions. The awards cited by Petitioner do not stand alone, however, and, presently, the wide majority of awards have consistently upheld the "exclusivity" rule as asserted herein by Carrier.

 in Award 13656 (Mesigh), for example, which involved the same parties, it was held that:

        "The Scope Rule of the Agreement is general in terms and the terms do not specify the work reserved to such employes. The Board has interpreted the Scope Rule between these same parties in Awards 12298, 11832, 11784, h Rule of the Agreement is general in form, the Petitioner has the burden of proving that the work is of a kind that has been historically, customarily and exclusively section forces. Performance alone does not give the Claimants exclusive right to the work.


          In Award 13694, also involving the same parties, it was held:


        The Scope Rule of the current agreement, which applies over the Carrier's entire system, fails to expressly reserve this work to the Claimants. It is urged by the Organization that past and prevailing custom and practice establishes in Section Forces the exclusive right to do the work described in the Statement of Claim. In order for the Claimants to prevail, they have imposed upon them the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Section Forces performed the service d other crafts not only at Jackson, Mississippi, but over the Carrier's entire system, and we find they have failed to meet the burden."


Under the foregoing and numerous other awards to like effect, no matter
 how clear-cut or long standing a local practice may be, the complaining employees
 must show a coincident system-wide practice in order to prevail under a scope rule
 hich is general in nature. Consequently, on the record before us, the Board can
 out find that the Petitioner has not carried the burden of establishing that the

 disputed work has been exclusively performed by section laborers on a system-wide basis. Accordingly, we shall deny the claim.
                Award Number 19516 Page 4

                Docket Number W-18379


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 Emnloyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June ?1, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreem:at wan not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEt7T BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December 1972.