NI
 ATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

 THIRD DIVISION

 George S. Roukis, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Award Number 22391
 Docket Number W-22490

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

(1) The Agreement was violated when outside forces were used to remodel and paint the Carrier-owned Magnolia Hotel at Magnolia, Alabama (System File A-8322JD-9451).

 (2) As a consequence of the above, B&B Foreman L. °s:. Nettles, First Class Carpenters B. G. Tribble and E. D. Turner, Second Class Carpenters D. E. Pickens and T. Carter, Jr., B&B Helpers E. Griffin III and J. L. McCollum each be allowed eight hours' pay at their respective straight-time rates for each day within the period extending from March 26, 1977 through May 1, 1977."

uu,uua.e.at3.rtg oiueta.cr sov.o.um. ux.a.ue,. o, find that complying with the notification requirements ofvRulew99 does not automatically establish work exclusivity. We noted, for, example, in Third Division Award 21287 (Referee Eischen) that "The giving of such notice, therefore, merely serves as formal compliance with the Agreement; it does not of itself establish exclusive Scope Rule coverage of the disputed work, negatively or affirmatively."

 Thin in7°~srnr~ti,sn nr%nrinSP rprtasiirPC an additional showing that the contested work exclusively aocrues to the aggrieved employes. If a positive demonstration is wanting, we invariably deny the petition.

 _, _ L~__w n_._M..._ ..,:.,s..,.. iii LILL e- il-lb-ta-uLt c-U observed the procedural specifications of Rule 99. It gave timely notice, conferred with Organization officials and implemented its contracting out decision, when it fulfilled these requirements. It recognized, of course, that these sequential actions did not bar a prospective grievance.


An important threshold question that now confronts us is whether or not Claimants possessed these exclusive work rights.

 The broad and general Scope Rule does not _provide the answer, so we angst methodically examine .the record.

 A careful review of the parties' correspondence reveals
 that Claimants had adduced documentary evidence verifying prior
 ~.Y. w..r.1. .. ` Magne9F- V..,a...9
 VyA Gsal~YltlleLSt`~J VYEC L'IB,~,"11V,yyu'V LLV4eWo
They were neither rebutted nor .qualified to indicate that other employes, at times, performed this type of work at this facility.

 Admittedly, this Hotel did not require an on going deployment of 8613 forces, but limited as this work might have been, the Claimants, nevertheless, demonstrated they had performed this ..*A~.~ mss- a's.a,c t_,~s.:.a,~

 In fact, Carrier recognized by implication' Claimants' presumptive rights to this work, when it specifically noted in ' its letter of july.g, 1977 to the General Chairman, that the February 12, 1952 Agreement provided definable contracting out exemptions.. It stated., "Since February 12, 1352, we have under agreement with the Organization had the right to contract out work where we did not have sufficient employes to perform the work during renular established working hours, or where the work could not be performed within the timevlimitsrequired by the Ry. Co. It

        In view of this assessment, we must conclude that Carrier

failed,-a.v , C.a . GG v ° 5 n9-1--®s.-f . 7. . 9 _ ~ c ..
 sSCUv..Y~ acsu,.c cyscmvyvcsy ,1so.uuc.u,.o w"vzY,. c:nwa_u~yv.n.l.y casartiwiYB
 and acknowledged by implication that R6.B forces performed this work.

 Therefore, consistent with this finding we must determine whether Carrier satisfied the test requirements of the February 12, 1952 Agreement.

 After reviewing the record on these points we do not find that Carrier adequately substantiated its averments that its fnrneaa suarP i-iaell Ian nr 9-hp5- HIM P-im® rrracs=zsa'&n9-a rearacaid-sztrarl rnn® tracting out. By asserting these defenses, it was under an
                  Award Number 22391 Page 3

                  Docket Number t-22490


obligation to come forth with more compelling evidence. Some form of quantitative measurements would have sufficed. As it did not meet its required proof burden under the February 12, 1952 Agreement, we must, of necessity, sustain the claim.

        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 has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1979.