Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29184
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28883
 92-3-89-3-284
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ('nion Pacific Railroad Company (former Missouri ( Pacific Railroad Company)

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Track Foreman N. L. McCoy instead of B68 Foreman B. L. Davis to provide flagging protection for bridge work being performed on Bridge 312.5 in Guion, Arkansas beginning July 20, 1987 (Carrier's File 871063).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, B&B Foreman B. L. Davis shall be allowed pay at the B&B foreman's rate for all straight time and overtime hours Track Foreman N. L. McCoy performed the flagging work identified in Part (1) above, b
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 1987, the Carrier contracted with an outside firm for the construction of a series of bridges Track Subdepartment "to provide flagging and other related duties relative to the protection of both the Carrier's and the contractors' operations." A Bridge and Building Subdepartment employee was assigned to perform inspection of the contractor's work.

 It is the Organization's Claim that the Carrier should have assigned a Bridge and Building Foreman, rather than a Track Foreman, for the flagging work.
 Form I Award No. 29184
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28883
 92-3-89-3-284
 The dispute here rests on contentions by each party which are not
 necessarily contradictory to each other. The Organization states that flag
 ging work at bridges has "customarily and historically" been assigned to
 Bridge and Building Subdepartment employees, while the Carrier states that
 flagging work _in general is performed by employees in a wide variety of classi
 fications. Given these two contentions, the reliance on "past practice" is
 not persuasive.

 The Scope Rule at issue here lists positions only and makes no reference to flagging (or to other sp
In the Board's view, the flagging location, by itself, cannot be the determinative factor :n deciding that the work "belongs" to a single Subdepartment. Given the partic the Claim for the exclusive right to the flagging assignment is without merit.






Attest:
        ancy J. e r -.Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, I11_:ois, this 3rd day of April 1992.