The organization notes that no advance notice of the contracting was provided and also contends that the work was improperly contracted, since "work of this character has customarily and historically been performed by the Carrier's Track Department Vehicle Operators, Machine Operators and Trackmen, and is contractually reserved to them under the Scope Rule and Rule 1".

The Carrier determined, in this and other instances, to relocate equipment by highway transportation, rather than on its own tracks. The Board finds no basis to dispute the Carrier's right to determine that these movements be made by highway, rather than by rail. The record simply does not support the Organization's contentions as to its performance of such highway transportation on a customary basis.

This claim is not a case of first impression. The Carrier points to a previous claim identified as System Docket CR-3974 involving a similar matter in 1988. At that time, the Carrier advised the Organization in part as follows:

"On March 11, Bob Ross Company transported a Gradall

EG 3001 from Altoona, Pa., to the Brier Hill Shop and On

March 28, 1988, Bob Ross Company transported a Spiker

SM2139 from Canton, OH, to Altoona, PA . . . .

Contrary to your position, the Carrier was not required to notify you of the intent to utilize the contractor. In fact, we have historically used contractors to haul machinery and equipment from our Shops to various locations over the entire system. In this connection we wrote you on January 19, 1988, regarding System docket CR-2780, which was denied by the undersigned. Along with that letter we supplied your office copies with a considerable amount of trucking bills from contractors for years 1982 to 1986, inclusive, supporting our position."

System Docket CR-3574 was not advanced off the property. The claim is cited here to indicate the Carrier's continuing contention that over-the-road equipment transportation has in fact been contracted on a regular basis.

The Carrier reiterates this position here, stating that "the handling (loading, unloading and transporting) of equipment has historically been contracted out" and that it does not have cranes of sufficient size, nor the necessary number of tractor-trailers to perform the work.

In this dispute, the Board finds appropriate the conclusion stated in Third Division Award 27629, as follows:

"The burden of proof lies with the organization to support its contentions (Third Division Awards 24508, 26711). This Board's review of the facts and circumstances in the instant case fails to support the Organization's position. A search of the record finds that the work is not specifically covered by the language of the Scope Rule. When not explicitly granted by Agreement, the Organization must show proof that the work was customarily and traditionally performed by the Employees (Third Division Awards 23423, 26084). Statements to that effect . . . are not proof."

AWARD