(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Illinois Central Gulf
 Railroad:

 On behalf of all employees assigned to Signal Gang 802 -Foreman D. J. Hoyle; Signalmen B. J. Woo Signalman S. A. Lipe -- for 32 hours at the pro rata rate of pay divided equally among them account the Company not using claimant to perform steel beading at Lake Creek, Illinois, on October 20 and 21, 1976. Two maintenance of way employees were used instead." jCarrier file: 135-137-125 Spl. Case No. 317 Sig./

 OPINION OF BOARD: Before proceeding to a substantive discussion of
 the merits, we are compelled to review the
 assertions raised by Carrier in its rebuttal brief that the General
 Chairman's May 26, 1977 letter to the Manager of Labor Relations
 was not received, considered or answered on the property. We will
 eschew detailing the relevancy and significance of Circular Rule 1
 since the parties are well aware of its meaning and intent and rule
 that the document is inadmissible. We do not find any evidence in
 the record that the new arguments and justification cited therein
 were mentioned or discussed in the prior exchange of correspondence.

 In the instant case, we are confronted with a claim that the addition of the word "welding" to Section (e) of the Scope Rule reserved whatever practice existed on this property respecting the welding of a stainless steel bead on the top of the ball of the rail. Petitioners argue that the Scope Rule specifically covers welding in connection with maintaining any system or equipment and that the track circuit is an integral part of the signal system.


It avers that its contention is consistent with the principle that the purpose for which work is performed determines to which class or craft the work belongs.

 Conversely, Carrier asserts that the process of steel beading on this property has been performed by the Maintenance of

 Way welders for more than fifteen (15) years and the Signalman acquiesced to this work assignment. It argues that the word "welding" provided for in the Scope Ibile only encompasses welding

 in connection with work generally recognized as signal work and that the contested work was never performed by signal employes.

 Cur careful review of the record convinces us that this work does not exclusively accrue to the petitioners by virtue of the incorporation of the word, welding, in Section (e).

        The entire Scope Rule does, in fact, delineate assignment

classifications that unmistakably belong to the Signa7.men and certainly welding in relation to these work classifications and functions would be by definition included.

 But we do not believe that the recent addition of this word was mutually designed to transfer work that was historically performed by the Maintenance of Way workers to this craft.

 The work was recognized for over a decade and a half as belonging to the Maintenance of Way forces and was not specifically included in the comprehensive Scope Rule work classification.

 Inasmuch as we find merit and precedent to petitioners' argument that the purpose for which work is performed determines
 the craft, we do not find it applicable herein. It should have been challenged sooner than now since the purpose of beading steel was
 always the same. Adding the word "welding" in this context does not change it. Moreover, we cannot conclude either that this word covers work that is generally considered signal work, since the steel beading of rails with an electric arc was never construed as signal work.

 This Board has long held as a matter of judicial consistency that where a general provision is cited as an affirmative assertion such as Sec. (g) to wit, "All other work generally recognized as signal work," the party making that statement has the burden of
                    Award Number 22418 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-22394


proving that the disputed work is covered. We do not find that this proof test was sufficiently met.

        Accordingly, we will deny 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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1979.