Erie Railroad

Electrical work as described in the Memorandum of Understanding dated March 21, 1950;

It is understood and agreed in the application of this Scope that any work specified herein which is being performed on the property of any former component railroad by employees other than those represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen may continue to be performed by such other employees at the location at which such work was performed by past practice or agreement on the effective date of this Agreement; and it is also understood that work not included within this Scope which is being performed on the property of any former component railroad by employees represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen will not be removed from such employees at the location at which such work was performed by past practice or agreement on the effective date of this Agreement."

The record shows that, prior to September 1, 1981, work on Hot Box Detectors on the former Erie Lackawanna was performed by members of the IBEW. The work in dispute involves new equipment which combines a Hot Box Detector, Dragging Equipment Detector, Hot Wheel Detector and electronic track circuits into one piece of equipment. When the carrier began deploying this new equipment, after the effective date of the Agreement, it assigned the work to members of the IBEW.

The Organization contends that this claim involves work specifically covered by its Scope Rule. While conceding that the IBEW previously performed the work on Hot Box Detector on the former Erie Lackawanna, it asserts tha new equipment and technology at new locations, that the work did not exist in 1981, and is thus not covered by the preservation of work clause in the Agreement.

The Carrier asserts that the IBEW by past performance and

Agreement had an exclusive right to Hot Box Detectors on the former Erie Lackawanna. It contends in its denial letter of July 6, 1990, that "Some of these new installations have equipment that takes the place of hot box detectors, dragging equipment detectors, and hot wheel detectors, the latter being new devices to which neither the

IBEW or the BRS have a prior performance claim." This being the case, the Carrier argues, it could properly assign the work on the new equipment to members of the IBEW.

Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Organization has failed to carry its require exclusive rights to the work in dispute. While both crafts presented colorable claims to the work in oral argument, neither was able to prove an exclusive right to the work.

Given the facts and circumstances of this case, and the lack of clear guidelines for the Carrier to use in deciding which craft should perform the work, we cannot conclude that the Carrier's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and therefore find that the carrier did not violate the Agreement when it assigned the work to the IBEW.

A W A R D