(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside forces to load and unload grain doors and grain door kits at Kenmare, North Dakota (System File 800-13-59).

 (2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement when it did not give the General Chairman advance written notice of its intention to contract said work.

 (3) Section Foreman Milo A. Nystrom be allowed one hundred nine (109) hours of pal at his time and one-half rate for May 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, June 3 and June 5, 1973 in addition to pay at his time and one-half rate for all overtime hours expended by outside forces in performing the work described in Part (1) hereof subsequent to June 5, 1973.

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant disputes Carrier's action of asserted assign-
 ment to outside forces of certain work regarding grain doors.

 Carrier asserts that the Claimant failed to specifically designate, on the property, the rule allegedly violated. Claimant insists that the context of the final denial letter, by Carrier's designated official, leaves no doubt that the basis of the claim was understood. We find it unnecessary to decide that isms, Assuming that Carrier was fully apprised on the property the claim of a violation of the Scope Rule must nonetheless be dismissed.

 The rule in question is concededly a general scope rule. Awards too numerous to cite have consistently determined that in order to prevail (under such a rule) Claimant must show that the work has been perform%d by the employee by history, custom and tradition, to the exclusion of others, on a system-wide basis. This Hoard has noted the dispute between the parties in this regard and is unable to find that Claimant has satisfied the burden of proof mandated by the prior Awards of this Hoard.

 We have noted that the claim also asserts a violation of Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement. Our review of the record shows that Claimant made reference to Article IV in the early stages of the handling


(June, 1973). But, we find no further reference to that asserted violation during the remaining handling on the property even though the matter was not submitted to this Hoard until October 1, 1974. In fact, when Carrier's highest designated official stated his understanding of the issue presented in the claim, he made no reference to Article IV - and Claimant did not correct his statement of the issue.

 Moreover, we find no reference to Article IV in Claimant's Submission to this Hoard.

 Only after Carrier stated, in its Submission bare, that the emloyes had asserted a violation of Arti Reply Submission, by citing the Article and concluding a violation.

 We feel that the status of the record clearly shows that the dispute handling on the property dealt with the asserted violation of the Scope Rule, and not a violation of Article IV. That conclusion is lhrther confirmed by the Organisation's failure to mention a violation of Article IV in its Submission here. We find it i issue which was not thoroughly handled and urged below.



That the Carrier and the Employe@ involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Biplane within the maaoif of the Railrey Labor Act, a approved fnw 21, 19341

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



        Claim dismissed.


                          AATIORAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMM HOABD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          ecntive secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of June 1976.