Please consider this as a claim of the District 1089 Protective Committee on behalf of R. A. Capaldi, Seniority 12/19/79. The Carrier violated the current Rules Agreement between the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the Transportation Communications International Union, particularly, but not limited to Rule 1 - Scope Rule.

On Monday, August 7,1995, Tuesday, August 8,1995, Wednesday, August 9, 1995, Tuesday, August 15, 1995, and Wednesday, August 16, 1995, the Carrier used and permitted Trackman R. Taylor to perform the duties of position JN-618, hours 11:00 a.m. - 7:30 p.m., location Providence MOW Base, incumbent E. Perolli, who was on vacation during this time period. Inasmuch as position JN-618 is a TCU Bulletined position a member of this organization from that location should have been called and used.

Therefore claim is made on behalf of R. A. Capaldi, Seniority Date December 19, 1979, for twenty (20) hours pay at the punitive rate as above. R. A. Capaldi, incumbent of position MC-606, hours 7:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m., was the senior qualified available employee at this location willing to work this position at the completion of his regular tour of duty.

This claim is presented in accordance with the current Rules Agreement, is in order, and should be allowed."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Scope Rule when it assigned janitorial work reserved to TCU employees to a Maintenance of Way (BMWE) employee.

The Carrier maintains that it has not violated the Agreement. It asserts that historically, at maintenance of way and other facilities system wide on Amtrak, employees of various crafts and outside contractors have been utilized to perform clean up work in work areas, lunch and locker areas.

The Board has reviewed the record. It finds that the Scope Rule of the Clerks' agreement is a "general" scope rule. Accordingly, the Organization has a considerable responsibility to demonstrate reservation of the work at issue to TCU employees. (See, for example, Third Division Award 31096 and Public Law Board No. 4304, Award No. 20.) Beyond assertions on the matter, the Organization has failed to meet the standards for demonstrating exclusive entitlement to the work in question. Accordingly, the Board has not alternative but to deny the claim.