(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Norfolk and Western Railway Company that:

(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope, when it used employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to install and maintain switching signals at West Avenue, Portsmouth, Ohio.





(b) The Carrier now pay Leading Signal Maintainer Nelson Bellar and Signal Maintainer R. P. McCo hours each at their overtime rates of pay for the violations cited in part (a).

(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement particularly the Scope and Rule 8(1), the Signalmen's Agreement to replace a signal lamp in the switching signals at West Avenue, Portsmouth, Ohio, on Saturday, August 28, 1971.

 (b) The Carrier now pay Signal Maintainer Nelson Bellar two and seven-tenths (2.7) hours at his overtime rate of pay for the violation cited in part (a).

 a
 ,_ s.l




(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope and Rule 8(1), when it used an employe not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to replace a signal lamp in the switching signals at West Avenue, Portsmouth, Ohio, on Friday, October 15, 1971.

 (b) The Carrier now pay Signal Maintainer Nelson Bellar two and seven-tenths (2.7) hours at his overtime rate of pay for the violation cited in part (a).

 OPINION OF BOAR: The Claims herein concern the installation of indicator
 lights on a switchtender's shanty and the replacement
 of bulbs in these lights subsequently. Petitioner alleges that the use of
 electricians rather than signal employes to accomplish this work was in
 violation of the Agreement; the Electrical Workers Union and the Carrier
 disagree.

 The Petitioner contends that the disputed work falls within the scope of the Agreement and further by custom, tradition and practice has been performed by Signalmen on this property. The Scope Rule of this agreement may be characterized on the phrase "generally recognized as signal work" as applicable to the disputed work. Petitioner also relies on Award 19058 to support its position; we note that this Carr not consider it to be controlling in this dispute.

 For the Organization to prevail in its contention that the work involved herein was improperly performed by employees not covered by the Agreement, it must be clearly established that the work has been by tradition and custom performed e employees. This position has been enunciated by the Board, in relation to general scope rules, repeatedly over the last decade; see for example Awards 12787, 17007, 19923, and 20179.

 Petitioner repeatedly argues that the work in question has always been performed by Signal employes; in its submission Petitioner states: "We have also for many years installed and maintained indicator lights inside and outside of stations and other structures ....". However a search of the record reveals absolutely no evidence in support of the well stated arguments. The Board has held repeatedly that the Organization has the burden of pro of proof. In view of the foregoing, we must deny the claims.






That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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







                      By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1974.