The claim asserts that supervisory personnel improperly performed scope covered work involving signal tests on traffic control equipment and operated a computerized traffc control (CTC) system to test operation of the control and indication functions of the signal system. The Carrier argues that the testing involved was part of a system wide conversion of the Carrier's traffc control system from various systems to a centralized and unified system in Fort Worth and supervisory personnel could perform such work under Rule 2.

On the property, the Organization asserted that covered employees at the Springfield CTC Control Offce have tested database changes to the existing CTC computer control machine exclusively for over 11 years. On the property, the Carrier asserted that, as a practice, in major checkouts supervisory personnel have always performed tests to verify the integrity of the system.

The Scope Rule covers ". . . inspection and tests . . . of. . . traffic control systems . . . JaIll appurtenances, devices and equipment used in connection with the systems cited . . . regardless of where located and how operated." In the handling on the property - specifically in the Organization's May 31, 1995 letter - the Organization also cited Rule 2. Rule 2 provides "Supervisory offcers of the Carrier may make other than routine or periodic tests and inspections."

The burden is on the Organization. Rule 2 has been raised on the property. The Organization has not demonstrated in this system conversion that the testing performed by supervisory personnel was merely "routine and periodic tests and inspections" which Supervisors cannot perform under Rule 2 as opposed to verification of the integrity of the system in a major checkout which, as the Carrier asserts, supervisory personnel have regularly performed in the past and which is permissible under Rule 2.

The Organization's burden has not been met. The claim shall be denied.

AWARD