Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29034
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29083
 91-3-89-3-523
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gerald E. Wallin when award was rendered.

 (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 the Carrier assigned outside forces (Osmose) to perform bridge repair work on the bridge at Gasconade Jct. from November 2, through 30, 1987 (Carrier's file 871130 MPR).

 (2) The Carrier also viplated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement when it failed t
(3) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2) above, furloughed B&B Foreman D. L. Fall, Motor Car Operator S. Parastar, and Carpenters J. C. Boyer, C. R. Caton and J. W. Penrod shall be paid:

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.

In this dispute, the Carrier used an outside contractor to perform certain repair work on its concrete bridge at Gasconade Junction, Missouri. The Organization alleges that this action violated the parties' Agreement. In addition, the Organization contends the Carrier violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National Agreement when it initiated the work without having provided the Organization with advance written notice of its intent to do so.
 Form 1 Award No. 29034
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29083
 91-3-89-3-523

 The record reveals that no notice was provided pursuant to the Contracting Out provisions of Article IV of the parties' Agreement. While Carrier admits it did not give notice, it maintains that it was not required to do so. The disputed work, in its view, is not covered by the Scope Rule and, hence, no notice was required.

 The parties have raised a number of issues and sub-issues in this matter. Based on our analysis of the record, we see these major issues for determination: First, whether the work was within the Scope of the Agreement such that it was reserved to the employees for exclusive performance, and second, whether the work was within the Scope of the Agreement for notice purposes and, if so, what is the impact of Carrier's failure to provide the required notice.

 The Scope Rule involved is a "general" type of provision in that it does not specifically describe the work of the various job titles it lists. Prior Awards of this Board, too numerous to require citation, have consistently held that a general prove that the work in question has been customarily and historically performed by the employees bef
The precise nature of the burden of proving customary and historical performance has been the subject of vigorous dispute. This Board is aware of the sharp divergence of prior Third Division Awards regarding the "Exclusivity Doctrine." A substantial number hold that a showing of exclusive performance by the employees, to the exclusion of all others, is the only evidence sufficient to warrant a findi substantial body of prior Awards requires something less than exclusive performance. Our careful rev Division Award 28654, January, 1991 decision involving bridge work, as an endorsement of the requirement-to show past performance to the exclusion of all others. Third Division Award 28849, on the other hand, a June, 1991 decision regarding grade crossing work, seems to reject the "Exclusivity Doctrine" and finds Scope coverage. However, the Award ultimately denies the Claim for other reasons.

 As we explained more fully in a companion case, Third Division Award 29007, our analysis of the Agreement and prior Third Division Awards convinces us that the Exclusivity Doctrine is not an appropriate test for Scope coverage vis-a-vis employees and outside contractors. We concluded there, and affirm that judgment here, that evidence demonstrating something less than strict exclusive performance is sufficient to establish Scope coverage.

 The record evidence in this matter is sharply conflicting regarding customary and historical performance of the disputed work by the employees and by outside contractors. The Organization has provided employee statements attesting to the past performance of bridge work. On the other hand, the Carrier has provided evidence of several hundred instances where work of the same or similar nature was contracted out. These instances transpired over more than seven decades.
 Form 1 Award No. 29034
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29083
 91-3-89-3-523

 The Organization has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed work has been customarily and historically performed by the employees. Wh burden to require proof of exclusive past performance, it does, in our judgment, require a showing.o review of the considerations bearing on this issue, we conclude, on the instant record, that the Org such regularity, consistency and predominance in the performance of the disputed work to warrant a f facts, satisfied its burden of proof that the disputed work was reserved to the employees.

 As we understand the prior Awards of this Board, however, a showing of past performance of the disputed work by the employees has been held to be sufficient to establish scope coverage for purposes of the Article IV Notice and meeting provisions (see, for example, Third Division Award 26301.) In that regard, we find that the Organization's evidence warrants a finding that it was entitled to notice. Inde4d, though Carrier, in its Submission, officially denies it was requi
Regarding the damages issue as a result of the Notice violation, Carrier says that it has for years contracted out the disputed work, without providing notice, and the Organization has not protested such actions. The record does demonstrate extensive past contracting out of similar work and, at least until the very recent past, the record is devoid of challenges by the Organization. As this Board said in Third Division Award 26792,

The instant circumstances are substantially similar. The record shows that the Organization has not insisted on the Article IV notice until recently. Although the Organization contends to the contrary, we do not find that Carrier acted in bad faith in failing to provide notice. On this record, the Organization has cited only two Awards of this Board that predate the instant dispute. Both Awards, however, involve different work and different language. These Awards, in our judgment, would have provided minimal previous guidance to Carrier regarding its notice obligations. The facts of this record do not persuade us th the notice provisions. Accordingly, we partially sustain the Claim by directing Carrier to provide t in the future. However, we deny the portion of the Claim which seeks compensation.

 Because of our Award herein, we did not reach the merits of the Organization's procedural objections to the content of Carrier's Submission.
 Form 1 Award No. 29034
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29083
 91-3-89-3-523






Attest:
        ancy J. a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 28th day of October 1991.