The instant dispute presents Scope coverage issues arising out of the Carrier's decision to use an outside contractor to install a sprayed foam roofing materials on the tower in question. The Scope Rule involved refers to " . . . repair and maintenance of . . . buildings and other structures . . . " without explicitly reserving the work involved in the application of foam roofing materials. As such, the Scope Rule is general. The extent of its coverage, therefore, must be established by evidence.
General Scope Rules pose two distinctly different aspects of scope coverage in contracting disputes: Scope coverage for notice purposes and scope coverage for performance purposes. To establish scope coverage for notice purposes, the Organization need only demonstrate a minimal level of actual past performance of the kind of work involved. This is a relatively low evidentiary requirement. To establish scope coverage for reservation of work purposes, however, requires proof that the employees have customarily, historically and traditionally performed the work in the past. This standard imposes a significantly more substantial evidentiary requirement. Moreover, merely providing notice of plans to contract out work does not operate as an admission of scope coverage for reservation of work purposes.
On this record, the Carrier did provide notice by letter of May 31,1994. It noted that the application of the material had to conform to manufacturers' specifications to obtain a five-year guarantee. The letter went on to assert that the employees were not qualified to perform the work and, further, that the Carrier did not possess the necessary equipment.
While the Organization's initial claim asserted that the employees had ". . . performed these very same duties . . . in the past," it significantly retreated from this position in its February 14, 1995 appeal. It said there that M of E department employees, who are a different craft in the Carrier's Car Repair Shop facilities, had the same equipment and used it to insulate box cars and refrigerated cars. The Organization went on to state that if the M of E employees had become qualified, then the Carrier could ". . . just as easily train employees under the jurisdiction of the Brotherhood." In its final appeal on the property, the Organization made no assertion whatsoever that covered employees had performed the specific work at any time in the past.
Given the foregoing considerations, we are forced to conclude that there is no evidence the covered employees have performed foam roofing work at any time in the Form 1 Award No. 35432