(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

















OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute before us is one of contract interpretation.
 Petitioner has alleged that Rule 53(2) of the basic
 Agreement between the parties was violated when a General Roadmaster and a
 Track Supervisor performed certain work alleged to be exclusively work belong
 ing to the employees covered by the Scope Rule in said Agreement. Rule 53(2)
 says, in pertinent part:

        "The work of Roadway and Track employees will consist of ******* patrolling and watching track and roadway; *****."


Claimants were assigned to work Mondays thru Fridays (excluding holidays), with Saturdays and Sundays designated as rest days. Pursuant to an Agreement between the parties, dated December 9, 1966, the day following Thanksgiving Day was substi and Saturday following Thanksgiving, 1970, and again over the New Year's Day weekend, 1971, the General Roadmaster and the Track Supervisor (in the first instance) and the Track Supervisor (in the second instance) are alleged to hav, performed work in violation of the aforementioned Rule 53(2) in that they patrolled the track over the territories referred to in the claims.

 Petitioner submits that Rule 53 is a delegation of work Rule which, by its very language, describes that work reserved to and customarily performed by track forces, to the exclusion of non-contract employees. Petitioner stated, "Since the foreman and his gang are charged with the responsibility of maintaining the track in a sa in order to detect loose and/or missing bolts, broken rails and angle bare, etc." Petitioner avers that this is precisely the work that was performed by the supervisory employees her other hand, readily admits that its supervisors made certain trips over the territory in question, i classified as "patrolling" track. Rather, Carrier maintained that "They merely made a trip over their respective territories to see the general condition, progression of work, etc and in line with their continuing responsibilities as supervisors." Carrier further stated that none perform the supervisory duties that were actually performed.

 yi
 .v:...^~..':3s`
                  Award Number 19754 Page 3

                  Docket Number MW-19709


Other than the foregoing type of generalization, replete with assertions and counter-assertions, there appears to be nothing in the record of the handling on the property or in the partisan submissions to this Board that could be construed to be of probative value. It is also interesting to note that, other than the exchange of correspondence between the parties identifying the claims and one conference concerning this matter. This would hardly seem indicative of an effort by the parties "to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions" and, if possible, to decide all disputes "in conference between representatives designated and authorized so Second of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Petitioner asserts that the language in Rule 53(2) regarding "patrolling" is clear and unambiguous and delegates such work exclusively to the employees covered by the Scope Rule of the Agreement, which the Carrier has not successfully rebutted. This position of exclusivity, per se, is not the issue before us. The issue that thin Board is asked to rule on is whether the supervisory personnel involved performed work that should have been performed by contract employees or, stated another way, did the supervisory personnel actually make an inspection trip over the territory involved, which is part of their normal duties, or did they "patrol" the track as contemplated by the Rule in question. On this point we have before us merely assertions; Petitioner alleging that th the supervisors "inspected," It is an uncontroverted fact that supervisors do inspect their assigned territories, and do so as part of their overall responsibilities. The extent, in addition to their overall responsibilities of inspecting has not been demonstrated by the record before us.

        Award 17334 (Brown) stated, in part:


        "It would be speculation on our part to supply the necessary inferences to support the Organization's position. Inferences may properly be drawn from uncontroverted evidence, but the basic case may not be supported by inferences alone."


        Additionally, Award 18061 (Dugan) stated in part:


        "As we have often said the burden which a Petitioner bears to satisfy the principles is harsh. However, the many years ancestry of the principles mutt be honored in the interest of uniformity and stabilization throughout the industry. Be there any who find the principles repugnant - and we know there are some - their remedy lies in collective bargaining."


Upon the record, as made on the property, we are unable to adjudicate the merits of the alleged violation. We will dismiss the claims.
                  Award Number 19754 Page 4

                Docket Nu.aber Mil-19709


        FINDI77;S: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record sad all the evidence, finds and holds:


        Thpt the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the manning of the Railkmy Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That upon the record made on the property we era unable to adjudicate the merits of the claims.

                      A W A R D


        Claims dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAIL.RC.1D ADJUSTLMT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~. i~/ ~/
 Executive secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of May 1973.

 I
 ..