(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Union Pacific Railroad Company - Western Districts


1. The Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement dated May 16, 1980 when on may 18, 1980 Carrier utilized Road Foreman of Engines, G. W. Underwood, to transport a "dog-catch" crew on duty at 9:30 pm from Milford, Utah to Upton to relieve a crew tied up under the Hours of Service Law.
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate claimant, extra furloughed Clerk, Barbara Jones, for 8 hours pay at the rate of crew dispatcher for date of May 18, 1980.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts which give rise to this dispute are not a matter of
 disagreement between the parties. On May 18, 1980 the carrier
 was required to transport a relief crew from Milford, Utah to Upton, Utah, a distance.
 of over five (5) miles. The relieved crew in Upton was then transported back
 to Milford. This was accomplished by Road Foreman of Engines, Underwood.
The Employees assert that, under the Scope Rule, the work of transporting crews is that of the Clerks and that, instead of using Underwood, the carrier had the obligation of calling the Claimant, Barbara Jones, an extra furloughed employee who was available and had the right to perform this duty.
It is their position the Scope Rule, which heretofore was general in nature, "was amended on May 16, 1980 to a Position or Work type Scope Rule which does not require the employees to prove system-wide exclusivity."
To buttress their position the Employees' cite numerous awards as contro; among these are:





          Award Number 24814 Page 2



The Carrier, in defense, responds that the .Scope Rule does not give _h~ Clerks exclusive right to transport crews. They argue that the Rule describCs normal duties not excusive duties.
        Among others they cite the following awards:


        1) Award No. 17739, a 1967 case which is identical to this one, in

        which a Trainmaster transported a dog-catch train crew from Pfilf,·na,

        Utah to Lund, Utah and the Employees Claimed a violation of the

        Scope Rule. In denying the claim, the referee held. "Insofar as

        the Scope Rule is concerned it is general in nature, thus placing

        upon the Organization the burden of proving that the job of transportit.,

        employees from one station to another, has been reserved to

        positions under the Clerk's Agreement exclusively; further, that

        the reservation of such work has been the traditional and historic.:

        custom and practice on the property. The evidence before us indicu=r=:, otherwise,


          Clerks' Agreement, have been transporting employees both in privately owned and Company owned automobiles over a long period of time."


          2) Award No. 19789, a 1968 case, which deals with the transportation of materials and denies the claim, adding, "Similar claims have come before this Board on so many occasions that the principle should be considered stare decisis."


          3) Award No. 21485, a 1975 case, which denied a claimed violation of the Scope Rule involving assignment of a taxi service to transport crews. The Referee held, "A review of the Agreement and the record indicates that the work here in dispute is not the exclusive .right. of petitioners."


          4) With respect to the Claimants citation of Public Law Board _No. 2625, Award No. 1. The Carrier paints out that Award No.i4 of thi:, PLB holds ..."This Rule 1(d) has the effect of reserving the Agreement - covered employees no less but no more of such work... Rule 1(d) is a shield against diminution of that work through distribution by Carrier to strangers to the Agreement..."


While the organization avers that the Carrier - cited cases might have been controlling before May 16, 1980, but that the Scope Rule was changed from, .s general rule to a Position or Work type Scope Rule, they do not cite any specific wording change in support of this contention. The Petitioner has the burden of proof to produce evidence in support of its position and in the opinion of this Board they have failed to do so.
From the evidence and citations produced here the Board concludes that the petitioner did not have exclusive right to such work before May .16, 7980 and has failed to demonstrate that it acquired such rights 012 or after that date.
          Award Number 24814 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-24547


        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:
          Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May, 1984