(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

(1) The use of other than Track Subdepartment forces to clean cars on the former NP cleaning track in the Carrier's Tacoma Yard is in violation of the current Agreement (5-1-71) and of historical and traditional practice under the Agreement which pre-existed at that location prior to 5-1-71ystem File S-P-114C/MW-84(c)-6, 3-5-73T.

 (2) Sectionmen H. Gray, R. L. Rogers, J. Laster and G. A. Lyscio each be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their respective straight-time rates for each day on which other than track subdepartment forces are used to clean cars on the former NP cleaning track at Tacome Yards. This monetary claim is for the period beginning November 29, 1974 and continuing to the date on which track subdepartment forces are reassigned and used to perform the subject work.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On November 4, 1974, the Carrier established a car
 cleaning operation at Tacoma, Washington utilizing
 clerical employes represented by the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks'
 Organization. - On January 28,.19753_-the Organization filed the instant claim
 contending that for over 30 years, track sub-department employes at Tacoma
 Yard have always.cleaned_cars. The Organization submits that Rule 1(C)
 and Rule 69 (C) of the current Agreement between- the parties was intended
 to preserve pre-existing rights that had accrued to employes on each of
 the component lines that were merged into Burlington Northern Inc.
 effective March 3, 1970. And one of these pre-existing rights was the
 right of track sub-department employes on the former Norther Pacific at
 Tacoma Yard to clean cars. Thus, when Carrier assigned this work to ~-
 clerical employes, the Organization maintains that Rule 1(C), Rule 69(C)
 and a long standing practice of assigning this work to car cleaners was
 thereby violated.

 Initially, the Carrier asserts that the instant claim was not properly filed within 60 days of the date of occurrence as required by Rule 42(A) and thus must be dismissed. However, this Board agrees with the Organization that the instant claim constitutes a continuing claim that may be filed at any time as allowed by Rule 42(D). Accordingly, we hold that the claim is properly before this Board for adjudication.
 Award Number 21844
 Docket Number MW-21601

 Page 2
specifically grants to track sub-department employes the exclusive
 right to car cleaning work. Rather, the Rules preserve to those
 employes any pre-existing rights that had existed on the component
 lines prior to the merger. Yet we are unable to find from the record
 before us that track sub-department employes on the former Northern
 Pacific had the exclusive right to perform car cleaning work prior to the
 merger;--The--Schedule-Agreement betdeexi-tlie-Orgaxiization-and the former -------
 Northern Pacific did not grant track sub-department employes the exclusive
 right to car cleaning work It was therefore incumbent on the Organization -
 to prove that those -employes- had performed car cleaning work to tfie - --
 exclusion of all other employes system-wide on the former Northern
 Pacific. The Carrier has submitted documentary evidence that on the
 former Northern Pacific clerical employes as well as employes represented
 by the Firemen and Oilers Organization were assigned to perform car
 cleaning work. The Organization has failed to come forward with
 probative evidence to rebut Carrier's evidence. Accordingly, it is
 the considered opinion of this Board that the Organization has failed
 to establish that track sub-department employes on the former Northern
 Pacific had the exclusive, system-wide right to perform car cleaning
 work. And since they did not have this exclusive right prior to the
 merger, they did not have it subsequent thereto. The claim must
 therefore be denied.

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;

over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 Claim denied.

 A W A R D
ATTEST:

Dated at Chicago: Illinois, this 6th

 NATIONAL RAIL~JU
 By Order of Th1i

 day of January 1978.