MAT=iAL R.U::aoAD ? i,15:s`.''T 3DA RZ

_ ".u J_~ry

 Joserh Sicles, _^-.ei.-pee

 PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM-

 Award Nwmber 20'j

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way F.nployes
 r
 (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


^.o bvyr _(~`.r, _"^Ociobe_ rc, ,:..t), c-,: :. ....'J-.:,e _<-,._'~^4~'ct,c^:__t- ^?_ 5r, n, n=,.: track ^10 'a7~ (Ctrrie_'~yiile 013-
the 'irclr,:~-'_.. in .Part (

 I.onwoz>-: Shermsn . .,.. ",:. al'.."·.~d e:i~r~ "ro:-' Day at
 ,. _ ,
 _ .`.r~,--~_,_r_; ti-.5~ 1'a t? i~S' ec:Ch .CL' the .i.,r,~'1t i13ys identifi=d

 Joints , "li,^_h

 removal _.nd . ....._,.._at v'_' ,,^_`10^x.. ~.)c^..i'3 ..nd trai2k bolts.
 It .:£`a.^, ..__'e3..__ - _ . r ,-_ C·_r`,-..._ _.,·_.__:t -_djl=at .`..o _.'-c. _olnts.
 reinforci_., :~'-:, ',_.e :toddeiwit'__n ';:'1= pa"_m<:nt for struc-'y'al'streng'_h
 ~i$-=M~_ -..._ .--~_ -` ro, i __.._ b__.. ,.1t the . .._ .
 ThA _ n_ -. ~T':i_,. _i. :.~.5~ -^k 'f a nrr. n :t%, ,~
 with a to°ci, _ ..::~e. . ,.t "-1 I':or.·:or':....

 Clai^.ELnt a56e=`tz; that since the reinforcing rods 'Ln);eddea in the pavement ai:e 1.'.,__X..:11 '%7 struct'ara1 ..-r==gth :if i.:'1·= Ceacre't`ta, ,nd not incidental to track war::, Carrier violated the Ag'eament.

 Both parties have expanded upon the dispute in their submissions and arguments t0 this Pllard, arid consistently, each .nas 1~S"°d that the other has rai:rd Matters ,,,hich were not advanced and considered on the property. In this regard, sae have confined our consideration to documents of record on the property in an effort to fame the issue which is properly before us.

 The initial claim asserted that the work in question "...is
 specified e.s iron -ork··rs ·,rork in accordance with the classification rule ... `!1" i:"' -. ~·~.· _ ~.~ ,.~ r..t. _ ._ _~.~.1 al. r_~e
 work ,..i5 CO-v=r_.. "_ti:'~r .iaja (;laS.>1:1Ca".Lii:ae.e

        We have otudi_d_''~l%le 2 at 1:'.' Tth, 1-It lo fin,! ~rlst

the cutting wor is sroecified in said Rule. Accordi=vly, _n order to find
 a violation., We Would r-:q;ire :pore than ;:he conclu;_Ionary statements re
 ferred to aoov>, -specially since C=rier ._~_-nied that ':he wor:c in question
 arcrcr1ed to tile _:'-nwcr',er; tend since ("'~ ....^..'s:_,`. ,3ser-ed "o _'.·`.. . .^h 1 a
 tion on -he f)Tr::,.;_i'ty",
          ward :hxaber 2J'10 ?ace 2

                    ^


Docket Ju.^.wr'-.:' 'Y-2_c6c~.nhe -1aiman-t Srsues -hat the "exclusivity" '.-ccry, i-s not a .'actor _1 '`his ^:_.s.^[`°.. ^·-n .issli-ming the ~Tanizzat:.on :.,y ·n,.-rcclt _n that assessment, urder This Rule surely some showing that :he disputed work !s properly per.°o=ed 'cy ;,ae :[_crwci.-,._r cnculd 'cave been raised on L: a property.

 We cannot state that the Organization's contentions do not have a basic ap=eel; however, we are inclined to dismiss this claim for failure o_` rrcof.

        FM17GS: The Third D-;visicn of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all- the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the par ties -,:awed oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the ~-'nployes involved in this dispute are respectivelf Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board :as jurisdiction over the dispute Ln-:ol·r=d herein; and

        That the claim is dismissed.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD Af,:TUS 1%MT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


          ATTEST:/·,d,r Executive Secretary


Dated st nicago, T_-'_,'_.n_ci3, `,his 30th 1 %r - r %.rril 197:.