(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 assistant roadmasters instead of Section Foreman S. A. Acord and Assistant Section Foreman D. Morgan, Jr. to patrol track assigned to Section No. 2, G.R.B., New River Division (System File MW-MU-74-6/V-TC-18).

(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, the monetary claim presented on the property shall be allowe




OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization claims that the Carrier violated the
Agreement when it assigned three Assistant Roadmasters to perform patrol work over a section of newly constructed railroad.

The contentions of the Organization in the claim are that this work has been historically the work of Maintenance of Way employes, seven of whom attested to that fact, and that the Claimants herein should be given overtime benefits for the work that was improperly assigned.

The Carrier maintains that the Claimants do not have the exclusive contractual right to perform said work, and, even if they did, the Claimants could not have been able to perform it.

The issue at hand is the question of whether or not the Scope Rule of the Maintenance of Way Agreement was violated. The Scope of work clause in said collective bargaining agreement is specific in nature, to wit:
Award Number 21456
Docket Number MW-21553

SCOPE Rule No. 1

Page 2

"These rules shall govern the hours of service, working conditions and rates of pay of all employes in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department, inc watchmen or tenders, track, tunnel and bridge watchmen, lampmen, pumpers, pile driver, crane and dit train engine watchmen, camp cooks and camp attendants, draw bridge tenders, roadway machine inspectors and repairmen, pump repairmen, and pump repairmen helpers. This agreement shall not apply to the following:

1. Supervisory officials of higher rank than foremen.
2. Clerical and civil engineering forces.


The burden of proof herein is upon the Claimants. The Board in numerous decisions has held that such a claim must show system-wide exclusivity. Such exclusivity
The Scope Rule does not mention patrol work. Axiomatic to contract language is the principle: To express one thing is to exclude another. To be exhaustive in delineating a specific Scope provision is construed by the Board to mean that others were meant to be excluded.



That the parties waived oral hearing;

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;



the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was not violated.

The claim is denied.

A W A R D

ATTEST: pa4a~



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADU,w

J'f

By Order of Third

day of Merch 1977.

DI - -

Lvis3TW-