(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Ccmnittee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when on August 17, 18, 19, 24 and 31 and September 1, 1982, it assigned other than Track Subdepartment forces to perform the cork of cutting right-of-way (trees and other vegetation) between Mile Post 55 Savannah Division [System File C-4-(36)-SF5508).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, each employe assigned to Section Force 5508, on the claim dates, shall be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal expended by the Communication and Signal Department Employes in performing the cork referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claim before the Board was initiated by the General
 Chairman on October 12, 1982. In the Claim letter to the Division Engineer, it was asserted that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned to Signal Department employes the cutting and clearing of trees and other vegetation along the Carrier's right-of-way. The union also claimed that:

The Division Engineer replied that the work was performed in connection with clearing vegetation which adversely affected the operation of the cannunication lines and only brush it had been a traditional practice for Caanunication Employes to cut or trim trees and/or brush that were interfering with the canmunication systems.
                        Locket Number MW-26076


The Claim was appealed to the next level with the Union contending the lines were not actually fouled by the brush and the cutting was merely "preventive maintenance" which was reserved to the Maintenance of Way employes. To this, the Chief Engineering officer replied that the work was done in response to the fact an FRA Inspector took exception to the vegetation. It was also reiterat Communication employes on August 17, 18 and 24.

 On appeal to the highest level the Union provided a Communication employe statement that the lines were not fouled. To this the Carrier replied and in doing so provided statements fran the Supervisor in charge and the Division Engineer. It was stated that the FRA Inspector had in fact taken exception to the brush conditions and that it was an FRA exception when brush could interfere with the lines' operation. Additionally, it was claimed that Communication employes had done this type of work in the past.

 Last, it is noted the International Brotherhood of Electrical hbrkers, which represents the Ccnenunication employes, filed a Third Party Submission.

 This case rests on the application and interpretation of Rule 2, Section 1 and Rule 1 which read respectively as follows:

          "Rule 2 - Section 1


          This Agreement requires that all maintenance work in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department is to be performed by employes subject to this Agreement except it is recognized that, in specific instances, certain work that is to be performed requires special skills not possessed by the employes and the use of special equipment not owned by or available to the Carrier. In such instances, the Assistant Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance of Way, and the General Chairman will conf conditions under which the work will be performed.


          Rule 1


          These Rules cover the hours of service, wages and working conditions for all employes of the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department as listed by Subdepartments in Rule 5 - Seniority Groups and Ranks, and other employes who may subsequently be employed in said Department, represented by Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes.


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

                        Award Number 26225 Page 3

                        Docket Number Mt-26076


As these Rules pertain to these facts, it is well established that in order to prevail the organization must show that the work in question is reserved to them by historical custom and practice.

 It is the opinion of the Hoard that the Organization has failed to show that the specific work in question is reserved to then under the applicable test previously set see Third Division Awards 23852, 21131 and 17003. In fact, the work not only was clearly and primarily related to the maintenance of communication lines but there is no basis to conclude Ccmnunication employes haven't done this work in the past.

 FINDINGS: The Thin] Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard 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 15th day of January 1987.