(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT CF CLAN!!: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalaea on the Southern Pacific
 Transportation Company:

 (a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between the CompW and its Employee in the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signslmea, effective October 1, 1973, particularly the Scope role, and resulting in violation of Rule 72.

 The portion of Scope rule specifically referred to 1s that portion reading; "pole line signal circui "and all other work generally recognized as signal work performed in the

 field" bat includes all the rest of the Scope role also.( , Moors be alloMr. L. wed for sixty ci (GO) hours Jr. . Mr. HRess
 and M:. L. Jch at
 their respective straight time rates of pay. Time claimed account Carrier
 contracted with Evergreen Pacific Tree Service to cut and remove brash and
 trees from under and in the signal pole line, MP 7h4.3 to MP 747·5 of the
 Tillamook Line, on the Oregon Division.

OPMO* aLP BOARD: This Scope dispute arises from the Carrier's use of
 an outside contractor to cat and remove brash faros
 under and in the signal pole line on a three-mile segment of the Tillamook
 Line, Oregon Division. The work wen supervised by the Signal Supervisor
 and parent to the contractor was subject to his approval of the work. A
 Signal Maintainer coordinated the work with train movements.

 The Employes say the contractor's work violated the portion of the Signalmen's Scope Rule reading: "pole line signal circuits and their appurtenances... and all other work generally recognized as signal work performed in the field." The Carrier's position is that, since the disputed work is not specifically exclusivity applies and the Employer must show system-wide, exclusive performance of the work in order to prevail..




staeeaeatseofhthirty-Division en (37)asignal employ". Although Award 10.13236
 ruled that the exclusivity doctrine does not apply where, as here, a craft
 claims work done by an outsider rather than by another craft, this award
 has not been followed by subsequent authorities and therefore it has no
 current precedential value. The other Award, go. 3638, stands for the
 proposition that the purpose of the work is the criteria for determining
 the craft to which such work belongs. In this case, however, the Employes
 have offered no evidence to demonstrate that the brush did in fact cause
 any signal failures, false signal indications, or otherwise interfere with
 signal control wires; consequently, Award No. 3638 does not support the
 claim.

 It is clear from the foregoing that this case is governed by the doctrine of exclusivity, and that the fact of system-wide, exclusive performance of the work by siga The statements tram the tbirty-seven (37) signal employee do not establish this fact. The statements establish that the work has been performed by signal eaplcyes in the past - a fact conceded by the Carrier - but the statements do not contend that such has been the case system-wide and to the exclusion of other crafts end outsiders. In these circnestances, and on the whole record, it cannot be concluded that the lies have set their evidentiary burden and the elms will accordingly be denied.



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

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

                    Docket Number 80-21075

                    A W A R D


        Claim-denied.


                          IATIONAL RAILROAD ADJDB7KW HOARD

                          BY Oslo of Third DivieIoa


ATTEST:
        Executive e Secretary


Dated at Chicago, illiaois, this 30th .Ayr o! Jay 1976.