Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29159
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27292
 92-3-86-3-396
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis 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 Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned other than Bridge and Building Department forces to install a fire suppression system in the 'MX' reclaimer at the Lakehead Storage Facility on April 18, 19, 22 and 23, 1985 (System File 28-85).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, the two (2) senior furloughed B&B mechanics shall each be allowed seventeen (17) hours of pay."

 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.

 In April, 1985, Carrier decided to install an automatic fire suppression system in the operator' Handling and Storage facility in Duluth, Minnesota. The system was purchased and, after some consideration, it was concluded by the Carrier that the work of installing the system would be assigned to the Ore Dock employees represented by TCU. This work w 22, and 23, 1985. The Organization (MW) protested the assignment of the work to them. It contended that the fire suppression system should have been assigned to Bridge and Build Supplement No. 9 and the signed statements of forty-five employees to support its Claim. Supplement No. 9 reads as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 29159
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27292
 92-3-86-3-396
























The text of the statements relied upon to support the Organization's position all read as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 29159
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27292
 92-3-86-3-396











                            DEPT.


                        YEARS OF SERVICE "


Carrier based :ts position on Supplement No. 9 as well. It argued, however, that Item No. :, under work assigned to Ore Dock employees, covers the work at issue. Carrier considers the installation of the fire prevention system in the cab of tie bucket wheel reclaimer to be in the nature of maintenance and, as such, :_ Employees.

 It also argues that the statements by the forty-five employees submitted by the Organization have no Claim of exclusivity o- system-wide application and, even if they did, Maintenance of Way work an- O signed in 1977. The work of installing the fire suppression system in the cab of the bucket wheel re: _aimer is maintenance work and should be assigned to Ore Dock workers. The organization has not demonstrated otherwise.

 The Board has reviewed the record and the numerous awards submitted by the parties. As a result of that review, the Board concludes that Carrier has presented the more 'persuasive position. The burden of proof in such cases rests with the Organization. It is its task to persuade this Board that Contract language or, in :he areas. The Organization attempted to persuade this Board that Supplement No. 9 does not apply to this dispute, but that Rule 2 (Seniority, Bridge and Building Subdepartment) and Rule 26 (c) 6 (e), Classification of Work do apply. The Board rejects that position. Because of a long history of jurisdictional disputes, the pa Agreement (Supplement ';o. 9) to specifically address the problem in detail of who does what work. hat Agreement takes precedent over all others in the area of work distribut_on between Ore Dock and MW workers.
 Form i Award No. 29159
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-27292
 92-3-86-3-396
 The portion of Supplement No. 9 that applies to Bridge and Building
 Department employees reads as follows:

        "Bridge and Building Department Employes


          1. Maintenance and repair of conveyor systems and equipment not speci:ically listed for Ore Dock emp above.


        New maintenance to be allocated to Ore Dock or B&B employes will be allocated in accordance with the foregoing pattern of work distribution."


When one reads this language, it is difficult to conclude that the installation of a fire suppression system in the cab of a bucket wheel reclaimer is covered under that language.

 As to the statements of the forty-five employees submitted into the record, this Board does not view these statements as probative evidence but more in the nature of _eneral statements of what may have prevailed in the past.

 The Organizat_on submitted Third Division Award 27588 in support of its position. This Board does not consider the issue involved in that case to be germane to the instant dispute. We have, therefore, disregarded it in our deliberation.

 Based on the Irganization's inability to carry its required burden of proof, this Board is compelled to deny the instant Claim.

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


                  /00, 0,or


Attest:
        Nancy J. e - executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, IL1_-ois, this 3rd day of April 1992.