(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:_

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company:

 On behalf of Signal Foreman H. L. Martin, Jr. and Signalman G. J. Brown, assigned to Signal Gang 1065, headquartered at 3001 Choutesu, St. Louis, Missouri for eight days' pay at the time and one-half rate, account Carrier allowed and/or permitted signal officials who were not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to perform signalmen's work covered under Scope Rule of that agreement. This violation occurred on the following dates October 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1976, on the Illinois Division, Chester Sub-division between ICG crossing and Fults, Illinois."

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants assert that certain of Carrier's
 officers performed signal work on eight days in
 October of 1976, in violation of the Scope Rule which controls the work
 performance between the parties.

 The Employes insist that the work in question consisted of running new underground and overhead cables, changing old wires to complete circuit changes, removal and addition of various signal devices, such as relays, rectifiers, terminals and arresters, etc.

 The Carrier eoateaded,on the property, that the officials in question (who were at the site merely performed certain testing of cables and housings in order to determine whether proper connections had been made for a cutover to a new CTC Signal. Carrier denies that the officials performed any duties which deprived Claimants of signal work covered by the agreement.
docket. We are of the view that the Claimants have failed to suit ~!_ ':.-
 sufficient proof to warrant our conclusion that the Employes have


satisfied their burden of proving a violation - or that Supervisors performed work reserved exclusively to employes under the scope of the ,_.. agreement. Border those circumstances, we have no alternative bat to 1·- v"~,dismiss the claim based upon the Organization's inability to presnaE (mare definitive proof.

            FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 reapeetively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway LsbaaAct, as approved June 21, 1934;


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


            That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


            Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMT HOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


      ATTEST:

              cutive Secretary


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1979.