(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
"(1) The Agreement was violated when, on September 22 and 23, 1982, the Carrier used Track Patrolman Sturgeon and Track Supervisor Stone to perform track work in connection with a derailment at Peoria, Illinois instead of using Trackmen D. C. Clubs and J. M. Silva, Sr. to perform such work (System File PPUT-3499ITC 60-82)
(2l Because of the aforesaid violation, Trackman D. C. Clubs shall be allowed sixteen (16) hours of pay at his straight time rate and Trackman J. M. Silva, Sr, shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at his straight time rate.'
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization, on behalf of two named Claimants, makes
 a Claim for pay time lost as a result of Carrier's assignment
 of certain track repair and maintenance work in Peoria, Illinois to two supervisory
 employees.
On September 12, 1982, Carrier assigned Track Patrolman Sturgeon to adjust switches at ·A Yard' near Peoria, Illinois for eight hours. On September 23, 1982, Carrier assigned Track Patrolman Sturgeon and Track Supervisor Stone to perform track work in connection with a derailment in the vicinity of Sloan Street at Peoria, Illinois, which required sixteen man-hours to complete.
The Organization filed a Claim for pay for the work, which the Carrier declined. The Claim was then brought before this Board.
The Organization asserts that the Carrier's action violates the Scope provisions of the agreement between them. Rule 1 of the agreement states:








                    Docket Number NW-25629


Additionally, Rule 39 of the Agreement states in part:
        ·(i) A11 work covered by the scope of this agreement shall be performed by employees covered therein, except that certain jobs may be contracted to outside parties which the Railway is unable to perform because of lack of proper equipment, insufficient or qualified forces.-


The question to be decided in this case is whether supervisory employees outside the craft performed work reserved by the scope rules to employees covered by the Agreement.
The Organization maintains that the work in question was 'traditionally and customarily" assigned to employees covered by the cited scope rules and that the assignment thereof to the Track Patrolmen and Track Supervisor, who are excluded from the Agreement by virtue of Rule 1(a), was in violation of the Agreement.
Carrier argues that the scope clause is a general one, containing no job descriptions or guarantees of assignment to specific tasks, and that the burden is, therefore, on the Organization to prove that the disputed work has been historically performed exclusively by employees covered by the Agreement. Carrier further argues that it has been past practice on the property that track inspectors perform work that could be completed by one or two individuals, such as the work performed by the Track Inspector on September 22, 1982. According to Carrier, the repairs of September 23, 1982, are also consistent with this practice because the track supervisor merely assisted the track inspector in work which historically has been performed by employees occupying that position.
The Scope Rule in the Agreement, neither listing job positions nor describing the work to be performed, is clearly a general scope rule. The Board has repeatedly held that in order to establish rights to particular work under a general scope rule, the Organization must establish by probative evidence that employees covered by the Agreement have in the past performed the dispute work to the exclusion of all others. See Third Division Award 14507 and Third Division Award 21479. In this dispute, the Organization asserted that the work belonged exclusively to its employees, but offered no evidence in the record to support its contention. The Board holds that, in this case, in which a general Rule forms the contractual basis for the Claim, the Organization has failed to meet its burden. Accordingly, the Claim must be, and it is, denied.
        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;

                    Award Number 25492 Page 3

                    Locket Number MW-15629


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: f~(,~/~/
        Nancy J ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 23rd day of May 1985.