(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the agreement when it required train service employee P. N. Moon, Jr. to check cars in spur track at Hiram, Georgia, and Powder Springs, Georgia, and furnish list of both tracks to 1050 Operator at Howells Yard Office, Georgia, Atlanta Division, on October 4, 1975.

 2. Carrier shall compensate senior idle.clerical employee eight (8) hours pay at minimum rate.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This Board is mindful of the Third Division's
 extensive decisional law on the parameters of
 work exclusivity and the permissible standards of reasonable evidence
 and accordingly will eschew detailing and comparing the many nuances
 and distinctions enveloping alleged general Scope Rule violations.
 We will, however, postulate as a fundamental given, the long accepted
 ,operational principle that general Scope Rule assertions must be
 supported by persuasive probative evidence. Plain and unverified
 affirmations of claimed work jurisdiction will not suffice, absent
 the fulfillment of these required concomitant proofs.

 In the instant case, Claimant as the petitioning party has the primary burden of establishing beyond any peradventure of a doubt that the disputed work belonged exclusively to the Clerks. It is not enough merely to contend that the other bargaining unit improperly arrogated this work or that it was not incidental to the trainmen's normal responsibilities. A greater test of confirmatory verification must be met.


This obligation must be demonstrated by a clear and compelling showing that the preparation of s performed by them. Concrete and specific experimental referents should be adduced.

 While we find nothing in the record that sufficiently corroborates this claim or alternatively specifically negates Carrier's averment that the work was incidental to trainmen's duties, we do find that trainmen prepare wheel, blind siding and tie up reports and switch lists which are clerical in nature. Whether they conceptualize in the aggregate a generic coverage that encompasses squarely the disputed work is perhaps still open to question. But the evidence clearly doesn't confirm the conclusion that this work was exclusively performed by the Clerks.

 Conversely, we will not review the merits of the claimed violations of Rule 3(a), Rule 18, Rule 19(a), Rule 20(f) and Rule 34, since they were not raised on the property during the handling of this dispute. The application of Cirdular 1 is too well known to warrant an interpretative explication here.

        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 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 Board) h~ ;is~3on
 aver the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated. "~, <,

                    A W A R D Jv ,. u _


                                      I. J n-t~-r ,~ .

        Claim denied. y_J~ ''


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~/~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of May 1978.