Peter R. Meyers, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard System Railroad

              STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railr Company (formerly Seaboard Coast Line).


On behalf of Signal Maintainer J. E. Williams, headquartered at Raleigh, N.C., account:

 (a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope Rule, when it required or permitted Assistant Signal Supervisor M. E. Perry to perform work covered by the Signalmen's Agreement.

 (b) Carrier should now compensate Claimant J. E. Williams seven (7) hours at his time and one-half rate of pay. This to be in addition to any other compensation received on December 6, 1983. Carrier File 15-57(84-10)E."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On December 6, 1983, Claimant and another Signal Maintainer
 were assigned to work on a high voltage signal line.
 An Assistant Supervisor was also present and assisted with the work. Claimant
 thereafter filed an overtime Claim, citing the work performed by the Assistant
 Supervisor. Carrier denied the overtime Claim; the organization subsequently
 appealed this denial.

 The Organization contends that it is well established that an Official who is not covered by the controlling Agreement may not perform work that is covered by that Agreement. The Assistant Supervisor drove a hi-rail vehicle to and at the work site; the vehicle was used solely to reach and repair power Lines. The Organization therefore contends that the vehicle's operativh i5 within the scope of work reserved to employees governed by the Agree;~ent. Moreover, Carrier admitted that the Assistant Supervisor assisted in ·.:ic.~ng and replacing power lines, a further violation of the Agreement. 'fhe Orkanization asserts that Carrier's contention that only a small amount of work was involved neither mitigates the violation, nor destroys Claiman,'s ri.g''t to file this Claim for monetary loss. The Organization t'nerefore con tendS that the Claim should be sustained.

        Carrier assert:, that the Agreemen: has not been violated. Carrier

~: :.hat there is no support for the Organization's Claim that operation of to hi-rail vehicle :.s work belonging exclusively to Signal Maintainers. '-'i^e :.e is no mention in the Agreement's Scope Rule of driving trucks or opereting vehi^les. Mo_e ::t1el aisputed work being performed exclusively by Signalmen.
                      Award Number 26500 Page 2

                      Docket Number SG-26355


Carrier also argues that the Assistant Supervisor's assistance with the splicing, holding a light and holding two pieces of wire together, did not take the place of another maintainer. This assistance could have been provided by a clamp. Carrier a hand when requested to do so.

 Carrier also argues that if this Board does find that the Assistant Supervisor performed Signalmen's work, it would be, at most, a _de minimus violation. Carrier points out that the disputed work took only a few minutes, and any compensation should be at the pro rata rate; the damage Claim for seven hours of overtime pay is excessive.

 This Board has reviewed the evidence and the record, and we find that the Organization has not met its burden that the Carrier violated the agreement of permitting the As question. The Organization has not proven that the Assistant Signal Supervisor transgressed the usua shown that the Rules give Signalmen the exclusive right to operate the vehicles involved here.

 As this Board has stated on numerous occasions in the past, the Organization has the burden of proof in showing that the work was performed in violation of the Agreement. Here, the Organization has not met that burden, and the Claim must be 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;


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:
      .

      T 7

      Nancy J. Dever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of September 1987.