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 herein.
Pursuant to Agreements that became effective June 1, 1999, all positions were designated as Intermodal Service Representatives (ISR's). On the dates in question, the employee of a contractor instructed an ISR on how to perform certain work that had previously been performed by that contractor, but which was to be done in the future by Carrier employees.
By letter dated December 3, 1999, the Organization filed the instant claim, asserting that the Carrier should have called the Claimant to perform those training functions. The claim must fail for two reasons. First, while we concur with the Organization that work embraced within the scope of the Agreement may not properly be removed therefrom by the Carrier and assigned to employees not subject to the Agreement, the Organization in this case failed to establish that the work is scope covered. Nothing in the Agreement reserves to TCU-represented employees the right to perform training functions. Second, it is undisputed that neither the Claimant nor any other Carrier employee was familiar with the specific work performed by the contractor. As the Carrier correctly argues, the Claimant therefore would have been unqualified to train others to perform this particular work.
In claims involving work scope, the burden rests with the moving party to establish that the work comes within the coverage of the Agreement. The Organization did not meet that burden in this instance. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.