(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DTSPU=-:

STAT .Ei:T OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On Behalf of Messrs. R. E. Hendren and T. G. P:organ for their respective rates of pay, in addition to compensation already received, account not being used to clear brush from the pole line beginning March 17, and ending April 10, 1980. Instead, Carrier used an outside contractor, Sam Mc6,uirter Construction Company, Inc., P. 0. Box 427, Winona., 'Mississippi 38967, in violation of the September 1, 1976 Agreement, especially Rule 1(b) and (e)."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. During
 the period Karch 17, 1980 to April 10, 1980, Carrier employed the Sam i:IcQuirter Construction Company, an outside contractor, to clear brush around the signal and communication poles from Sardis., Nississippi to "emphis, Tennessee. The Organization contends that such clearing of brush is Signalmen's work under the Scope Rule of its Agreement with Carrier. That rule reads, =n relevant part:









i_ _



a"::e ;ir 4:i.-.ation po_nts out that since the mainte-ace of signal
 -s~e.-a~ iacluiinr pole lines is specifically covered by the Scope Rule,
 _: °r -. _... `~ exclusively ,S,ignalmen. The
 _ forte-: o_ such work belongs to the Organization asserts that in this case the contractor was from the pole line thereby maintaining that line _n violation of the Scope
 .;ule.

        The organization acknowledges that, as a general rule, clearing

brush fro:: the r'ailroad's right of way belongs to I.iaintenance of '.Tay employees.
 However, here the disputed work was done because the Federal Railroad Adcini
 stration ;r 4~ had cited Carrier with a violation because there was excessive
 vegetation near signal lines. Thus in the Organization's views the right
 of way was cleared solely for the purpose of maintaining the signal system.
 Merefore, this work is exclusively Signalmen's work under the Scope Rule.

 :inally, the Organization argues that Carrier may only subcontract work to outsiders (as opposed to assigning it to members of a crraft or class) under special circumstances not present in this case. In the Organization's view, the work sh the Signalmen's.

 Carrier~ on the other hand, insists that there is no violation of the Agreement. First, it argues that since the work in question is also performed by the i.raintenan be secured from those Organizations before our Board can decide this dispute. Thus., Carrier asks that this Board give the legally required third party notices before adjudicating the claim.

 As to the merits., Carrier argues that the work in question is not Specifically covered under the Scope Rule of the Agreement. That rule does not refer to the clearing of brush. In fact, some poles do not even carry signal wires. In Carrier's view, the clearing of brush does not belong exclusively to the Organizati
Where a Scope Rule does not specifically cover the disputed work, then the Organization must show that its members have traditionally, on a system wide basis, performed it. Here, other employes, as well as outside contractors, have cleared brush around signal and communication poles. Thus, in Carrier's view,, the work performed by the Sam IdcQuirter'Z`onstruction Company did not belong to the Organization under the Scope Rule or by past practice. Accordingly, bier asks that the claim be denied.

 Initially we note that a third party notice is not required under
 the facts of this case. This claim deals with work assigned to an outside
 contractor. Third party cases involve work performed by a group of Carrier's
 e:cnloyes represented by an Organization different from the petitioning Organi
 nation.. Thus, a third party notice is not required here and we may., therefore,
 decide the claim on its merits.
 Award Nmber 24163
 Docket Number SG-24207

 Page 3

 The crux of this dispute is whether the disputed work falls within the Scope Rule of the Agreement. If it does, then the work belongs to the parties. If it does not, then the fact that the work has been performed by other crafts requires that the claim be denied.

 We rule that the work in question does not fall within the Scope Rule. This is because the work was not signalmen's work. Instead, the work involved primarily maintaining and clearing of the right of way. Such work clearly is not covered under the Scope Rule. The Organization failed to prove that clearing of the brush was performed exclusively (or even primarily) to maintain signal lines.

 Having failed to prove that the disputed work is specifically covered under the Scope Rule, the Organization must show that the work has traditionally been performed by Signalmen.

 For the foregoing reasons, the claim is denied.

        F E011IGS: 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 17hployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Elaployes 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.

 Claim denied.

 :~1ATIOTT.AL R47LROADrAA7US'Ih::.i:'D Bi
 By Order of Third Division

 Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 osemarle 3ras . - iu'y.inistra:=-re "sa-_;!=Zlt

 Dated at Chicago, illiaois, this

 15th day of February 1983.