(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company .

(1) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the Agreement when, beginning October 14, 1974, instead of calling and using Caboose Supplyman P. A. Esposito to service cabooses on his regularly assigned work days, it used employes outside the scope of the Agreement and who did not theretofore perform service of that character at Savanna, T",nois (System File C# 49/D-1834).

 (2) Caboose Supplyman P. A. Esposito be compensated at his time and one-half rate for all time consumed by P.F.I. men servicing cabooses on his regularly assigned work days continuing until the aforesaid violation is discontinued.

 OPINION OF BQkRD: As of Friday, October 11, 1974, Claimant had oc
 cupied the job of Caboose Supplyman since the job
 was bulletined on May 10, 1968. His regular hours were 7:00 a.m. to
 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. It is uncontested that the duties
 performed by the Claimant had historically been accomplished by employees
 represented by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees at the
 Carrier's Savanna, Illinois, facility.

 On October 11, 1:974, work beyond the regular hours of the Claimant relative to caboose supply work was assigned to Perishable Freight Inspectors (PFI), represented by
The Organization argues that the work of caboose supply has been historically that. of Track Sub-department forces; that the Carrier re- . cognized this when it bulletined and assigned the job to the Claimant in 1968 and that it cannot now arbitrarily remove such work from jurisdiction of the BWE; it demands compensation for the Claimant and the appropriate rate for overtime for all time worked by the PFI men.


The Carrier contends that the Organization must demonstrate exclusive jurisdiction to such work S stem-wide to substantiate its claim. While granting that caboose supply work at Savanna is performed by employees represented by the BDBTE, the Carrier points out that such work is performed variously by employees represented by other Organizations exclusively at other loc outside contractors at some locations; by employees represented by more than one Organization at other locations; and, by a mixture of contractor and employees represented by Organizations at even other locations. (These contentions axe not .contested by the Organization.) It points out that its agreement with the BM's is System-wide and, as such, its claim on this work must be demonstrated to also extend System wide.

 The Organization disputes the Carrier's contention that the "exclusivity doctrine" applies here. Its claim, instead, is that Track Sub-department forces have traditionally, customarily, historically and exclusively performed this work at the Savanna facility.

        We.find the key issue here to be precisely the questions:


        Is the fact that track Sub-department forces have historically, customarily, traditionally and exclusively performed the duties of caboose supply at the Savanna facility controlling over the assignment of overtime after regular hours of the Claimant?


                        OR


        Must the Organization prove its right to this work by demonstrating System-wide exclusive jurisd


We are persuaded that the facts support the latter in view of past Awards. While it is true that track Sub-department forces performed such work exclusively at Savanna, the Carrier established its right to such work performed elsewhere on the System in a large variety of combinations and permutations of members of the work force including mixtures of different crafts and outside con
It is well established that when an Agreement is System wide, the Organization, to substantiate a claim, must evidence its right to such work on the same basis System wide. The Organization cannot point to provisions of the Agreement to Rule 46-CIASSIFICATION is devoid of reference to this work and its SCOPE Rule. (Rule 1) is general in nature.
                      Award Number 21854 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-21757


To give credence to the Orga'nization's claim here would be to ignore the bedrock concept of System-wide jurisdiction by an Organization where it has been estab the work force where such jurisdiction is not established.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the E"nployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June P1, 1934;

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

        The Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNMT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of January 1978.