Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28574
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27136
 90-3-86-3-197
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned outside forces to perform hauling and fi by the X-11 Crossing Gang from April 30, 1984 through November 8, 1984 (System File 47 NMA 121181/800-46-B-194).

 (2) The Carrier also violated Rule 47 when it did not give the General Chairman advance written work.

 (3) As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, the senior active sectionman shall be reimbursed for the difference between the sectionman's rate and Track Department Truck Driver's rate and he shall be made whole for all overtime and the senior furloughed sectionman on Sub-district 1-A shall be made whole at the sectionman's rate for all pro rata and overtime pay lost from April 30 through November 8, 1984."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 On December 26, 1984, the Organization presented the instant claim on behalf of senior furloughed sectionman on Sub-district 1-A and senior active sectionman on the X-11 Crossing Gang. The basis for the claim was Carrier's alleged hiring of an outside contractor, Schneider Trucking, to perform hauling and filling work in 1984 through November 8, 1984.
 Form 1 Award No. 28574
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27136
 90-3-86-3-197

 The Organization contends that the disputed work has customarily and traditionally been performed by Carrier forces in accordance with Rule 1, the Scope Rule, and Rule 45(k), which reads:

The foregoing language, according to the Organization, demonstrates that the work at issue is encompassed within the scope of the Agreement and should properly be performed by its members. The Organization further maintains that it should have contract out the work.

 Carrier argues that for many years it has augmented its special crews, such as the X-11 Crossing Gang, with specialized equipment not available on the system. The s dump truck, which Carrier asserts supplemented the truck working with the Crossing Gang. Given the longstanding nature of this practice, and the Organization's apparen claim must fail.

 A careful review of the record in its entirety convinces us that the Organization has not proven that it was entitled to perform the work in question. We note that Rule expressly refer to the work performed here. Rule 45(k), also relied upon by the Organization, is by the same token very unlike the specific, detailed work classification rules which spell out the duties to be performed by a particular craft or classificat guarantee of work or that it specifically reserves to the Claimants the right to perform the work at issue here.

 That being the case, this Board has required a demonstration of work performance by custom, practice or tradition in order to sustain a contracting-out violation. Here, its employees performed this work in the past, while the Carrier vigorously asserted that there has been a longstanding practice of using outside contractors to perform the wor conclude that the Organization has not met its burden of proving the essential elements of its claim.


Form 1 Award No. 28574
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27136
 90-3-86-3-197
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of October 1990.