The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 therein.

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

The claim before the Board contends that the Carrier's utilization of an outside contractor to repair trailers violates the Scope Rule of the basic Agreement. Indeed, this is the key issue since the Agreement requires notice and places other obligations on the Carriers if the work in question falls "within the scope of this Agreement."

The Board notes that the Scope Rule is not specific with regard to the work in question. Accordingly, it is well established that, given a general or essentially ambiguous Rule (as it relates to the work at bar), the Organization must demonstrate that they have historically and customarily done the work.

It is the opinion of the Board that the organization has failed to sustain their burden. Other than mere assertion, the only evidence produced by them to show they have historically done the work, is documentation that Carrier forces did a one-time minor repair project on a specific class of trailer that lasted a relatively short period of time. This evidence falls far short of establishing a history and custom of repairing trailers. While the Organization need not show an exclusive practice, the "historically and customary" standard requires sufficient evidence to convince the Board that repair by Carrier forces was the usual and ordinary course of action. The evidence is insufficient in this regard, particularly when viewed in light of the contrary documentation provided by the Carrier.

AWARD