Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMIT OF CLAIa4: "Claim of the General Cosmittee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Sixaalmen on the Atchison, Toper and Santa Fe Railway Company:

 (A) Carrier violated the Siren's Agreement, particularly the Scope, when on September 29, 1974 Carrier officer R. Dillon performed recognized signal work when he loaded signal material into Company vehicle and transported same to Lariat, Texas for immediate use.

 (B). Carrier should pay to TCS Signal Maintainer H. W. Bingham, Lubbock, Texas, additional. time equal to four (4) hours overtime because of loss of work opportunity as a consequence of the violation."

OPMO6 OF BOARD: The present Petitioner complains of the act of the
 Carrier's Assistant Signal Supervisor involving his delivering a signal relay to a Signal Maintainer actively engaged in making repairs to vandalized signals. The relay was immediately used by the Maintainer in accomplishing the repairs. It is alleged that the use of the Supervisor violated the Scope Rule of the parties' Agreement.

 The Petitioner contends that the act of transporting material to a work site for immediate use is work contemplated to be under the coverage of the Scope Rule of the pasties' Agreement and thereby reserved to the Carrier's Signal. Department employes. Supportive logic and awards are cited.

 The Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the work was not covered by the Scope Rule. Carrier further asserted that it has been the practice that "transporting of material°, per se, was not the exclusive right of the Petitioner on this property.
 Award Ember 22292
 Docket Number S6-22002

 Page 2

 The argument of bath parties finds support in the contract terms and the precedent cited. The resolution of the dispute most therefore turn as proof of position. The burden to present such proof is the Petitioner's. In this case the conduct at the parties is the determining issue. The Carrier's defense on this point was only lightly challenged by Petitioner in handling an the property and no support a2 Petitioner's contrary position is presented. inasmuch as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden in this case, it is unnecessary that we proceed any further.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Emglnyes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier aril 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.

 A W A B D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST: ake &,Zoz~

Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 31st

 FfATIOBAL RAILROAD ADJUSTWMT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 day of January 1979.