PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIIi: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier used Assistant Chief Engineer-Bridges Vasbinder to inspect cleaning and painting work performed on the Sprankle Viaduct by outside forces August 1 through August 31, both dates inclusive, instead of using Carpenter W. L. Mimes for such service, etc. (M/W file 4342)

 (2) Carpenter W. L. Rimes be allowed one hundred eighty-four (184) hours of pay at his straight time rate ($8.55 per hour) because of the violation described above."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The organization brings this claim on behalf of claimant, a
 Carpenter in the Bridge and Building Department, who was allegedly deprived adx~tork exclusively reserved to Maintenance of Way Employes under the Scope clause of the applicable agreement. On June 21, 1979, the Carrier notified the Organization that it intended to assign the Assistant Chief Engineer-Bridges (a supervisory official not covered by the labor agreement) to inspect painting work performed by an outside contractor on the Sprankle viaduct. The Organization, on July 5, 1979, urged the Carrier to assign a carpenter to assist the Bridge Engineer. The Carrier rejected the Organization's request. Between August 1, 1979 and August 31, 1979, the Assistant Engineer inspected the painting work on the Sprankle span. On September 24, 1979, the Organization timely presented this claim for one hundred eighty-four hours of pay at the straight time rate.

 The Organization argues that the inspection of paint on the Carrier's viaducts has been exclusively, customarily, historically, and traditionally performed by employes in the Bridge and Building Department covered by the applicable agreement. On the property, the Organization presented four letters demonstrating that, in the past, covered employes have performed the disputed work. The Organization also contends that the Carrier impliedly admitted the inspection work was subject to the Scope Rule when it gave the Organization advance notice in accord with Rule 54.

 The Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that the disputed work was not within the province of the Scope Rule. According to the Carrier, the Assistant Engineer and not the Claimant had the special knowledge and expertise necessary to competently inspect the paint work performed on the viaduct.

 The Carrier's notice dated June 21, 1979, which was tendered in compliance with Rule 54, does not constitute recognition by the Carrier that
 Award Number 235
 Docket Number MW-23891

 Page 2

 the disputed work is exclusively reserved to employes covered by the contract. Third Division Award No. 21470 (Bailer). The Organization retains the burden of establishing that Maintenance of Way Employes have historically, customarily, and traditionally performed the inspection work on a systemwide basis. Third Division Award No. 21287 (Eischen). In this case, the organization produced written statements showing that Claimant and other employes covered by the Scope Rule have, in the past, performed paint inspections on the Carrier's viaducts. The Carrier did not refute the veracity of these statements on the property. Though the Carrier did take exception to the statements in its rebuttal submission to this Board, a long line of Third Division cases precludes us from considering the Carrier's belated objections. The retard merely contains the Carrier's bare assertions that this particular inspection work required unique expertise. Thus, the Carrier failed to cue forward with probative evidence rebutting the Organization's substantiation that the disputed work was covered by the Scope Clause. Therefore, we must sustain the claim.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier end Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193+;

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

 That the Agreement was violated.

 Claim sustained.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary

 W A R D
National Railroad Adjustment Board

$y adw~ -



Dated at Chicago Illinois., this 10th day of March 1982.

 NATIONAL RAI7MAD AWTJS24ENT HOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 >
 so office -- o~s~