Claim on behalf of H.T. Miller, III, R.T. Kepfer, D.L. Sheldon, T.M. Campbell and J.W. Kelly, Jr., for payment of 30 hours each at their respective time and one-half rates, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, when it allowed or permitted employees of another railroad on September 7 and 8, 1991 to perform the covered work of moving power lines and denied the Claimants the opportunity to perform this work."'

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

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

These cases have been combined as one dispute because the facts are similar.

Claimants all held signal positions on the Carrier's Harrisburg Division. Conrail lines on the Harrisburg Division are also used by the National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak). Amtrak has responsibility for repair and maintenance of some Conrail lines over which it operates.

On September 7 and 8, 1991, Amtrak employees were engaged in a project to move two sets of catenary poles and a 138,000 volt power line on the Landover Line, over which Amtrak had responsibility for repair and maintenance. In the process of moving the lines, Amtrak employees elected to move the 6,600-volt line.

From November 11 through November 27, 1991, Amtrak employees performed work on Conrail's Enola Branch to de-energize the 6,600volt power lines. Conrail officials performed by Amtrak employees.

There is no dispute that the work allegedly performed by Amtrak was work covered by the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization.

The Carrier has maintained that the work performed by the Amtrak employees was done without its knowledge, its consent and at no cost to Conrail. In fact, a portion of the work consisted of grounding Conrail's 6,600-volt power lines to prevent injury to Amtrak employees while they worked on their lines. They did not maintain, repair, or relocate the lines.

This Board has consistently held that the burden of proof is upon the Organization to show that work performed by third parties was with the consent and approval of the Carrier. The record is void of any evidence that the Carrier authorized the work to be done by Amtrak.

This Board has also held that, even if the work done belongs to the craft, the Carrier cannot be held liable for what occurs, if it has not authorized the work to be done. In Third Division Award 29201, the Board held:

"Based on the facts as presented, it is clear that Claimant's rights were violated. At the same time, however, the Board cannot conclude that Carrier should be held liable for what occurred. There is no evidence that the work was performed with the authority instruction, or knowledge of a Carrier official or agent or at carrier's direction. Given this set of circumstances, a claim that Carrier violated the Agreement by its actions cannot be sustained."

AWARD