(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Telephone Maintainer J. T. Wilkens and Signal Maintainer 0. B. Ross to spread weed and brush killer at various locations between Amqui, Tennessee and Hopkinsville, Kentucky on January 22, 25, 26, 1971 and on certain dates subsequent thereto (System File 1-12/E-304-18).

(2) Trackman B. Barnett and N. R. Price each be allowed twentyfour hours of pay at their respect and 26, 1971 and continue to be paid for the same number of hours expended by Telephone Maintainer J. T. Wilkens and Signal Maintainer 0. B, Ross in performing the work referred to in Part (1) he 26, 1971.

OPINION OF BOARD: On the dates and at 'the points specified in this claim, the
Carrier assigned a Telephone Maintainer and a Signal Maintainer to spread weed and brush killer to control the growth of vegetation and brush. Carrier averred that this type of work has been done in years past in the same manner as in the instant case. The Petitioner, however, took the position that weed eradication work oalbs within scope of the Agreement and should have been performed by Track Department employees

Here, as in many other dispute$'involving the question of whether a particular scope rule in the under such Agreement, we are faced with a situation wherein the question of exclusivity has not been this Division involving the same parties, the same Agreement, apd similar - if not identical - contentions of the parties. These Awards are 19418 and 19419.







              "The Board has adhered to the principle, when the record lacks conclusive evidence of work assignment, that: 'the method of determining to which class such work belongs is by examination of the reason for the performance


              "The Board finds the instant record, without encroaching upon Petitioner's contractual right to the clearing of brush and vegetation from the right-of-way in general, lacks probative evidence necessary to prove that th on this property, was not performed at the behest of and for the benefit of the: Telephone and Si·;naL Departmeats."


        After a thorough review of the record before us we find that the rationale expressed in A,·ards 19.'19 and 19'09 has equal application to this instant case and we will, theret'ure, disni=c: the cl.aLm.


                FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment iloard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and hol::5:


              That the part_es waived oral h,-arioq·


        That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this ('·ispute are respectively Carrier and Fmployes within the 7u·.aning of ·hc Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 192'.:


        That this Division of the Adjust^ent !:hard has ji··rindiction over the dispute involved herein: and


              That the clair be dismissed,


                              A IJ A i2 h


                Claim dismissed.


                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUMENT BOARD

                      . By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: i

        Executive Secretary


                Dated at Chicago, Tllineis, this 27th play of July 1973.


.`W