Martin F. Scheinman, Referee


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of May Em·oioyes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company


STATEMENT OF Q,Al".i: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used Mechanical Department forces instead of Bridge and Building Department forces to construct a dicing facility in Florida (System File C-4(3o)-Tampa Division/2-2 (78-19) J).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, each Group A n&:B employee holding an assignment on the Jacksonville and Tampa Divisions during the c12i~ -eriod be allowed pay at their respective straight-t_.e rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of cyan-hours expended by Mechanical Department forces in performing the work referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPITIIO:I OF 30ARD: In September 1977 Carrier assigned ::,echanical Department
 Employes to install two screen doors seen slides and wont walls and a roof constructed of plywood sheeting etc. at the Jceta Yard in Tampa Florida. This work was designed to construct a ding facility.

 The Organization claims that this work has traditionally and historically been performed by Carr forces. Therefore, it contends that Carrier's assignment violates the Agreement. It asks for compens Group A and BB employes assigned to Jacksonville and Tampa.

        Rule 1, Scopes states:


        "These Rules cover the hours of services wages and working conditions for all employees of the M and Structures Department as listed by Subdepartments in Rule 5 -- Seniority Groups and Ranks and other employees who may subsequently be employed in said Departments represented by Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.


        This Agreement shall not apply to: Supervisory forces above the rank of foremen clerical employees and Signal and Communication Department employees."

Award :;umber 23852
 Docket :TuWber :~'v1-23138

 Page 2

 This rule is general in nature. It doe not reserve the particular work to the employes covered by the Agreement.

 Thus, in order to establish exclusive jurisdiction over the disputed work, the Organization has traditionally and historically been performed by them. See Award 14507 and 10389. That is, the Employes must prove that there has been a custom and practice of performing such work.

 Here, the Organization has failed to shoulder that burden. The evidence shows that Mechanical Department Employes originally constructed the facility in question. They constructed the cage, ·ahich was later used as a lunchroom, and made other modifications over the years.

 Thus, even if B & B employes did perform some of this work as the Organization clamed, the fact is that the work has never been exclusively B & B work. Instea by Carmen under Rule 100 of its agreement.

 We will deny the claim in its entirety.
FIND PiTOS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively (terrier and Employes 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 not violated.

 Claim denied.

 ATTyST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


/ _i
 BY C'~7C,-~Z7
    o marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 28th day of April 1982.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division