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.

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

This case presents a dispute over the Carrier's assignment of outside contracting forces to perform certain work on claim dates with dump trucks, a bulldozer and a roller within the confines of Kenmore Yard. It is undisputed that this was no "emergency" and that the Carrier contracted this work without notice or consultation with the Organization. Thus, the sole issue presented for determination is whether the specific work in question was, in the words of the Scope Rule, "work within the scope of this Agreement," a material point on which the Organization has the burden of proof as the moving Party in this contract interpretation case.

Careful consideration of the available evidence shows that the Organization did not successfully shoulder its burden of making out a prima facie case on this record. That the work involved hauling, spreading and tamping of stone does not appear to be disputed, but in its claim and throughout handling, the Organization insisted that the performance of this work was in connection with "roadbed repair"; whereas the Carrier denied the claim on grounds that the work was not "roadbed repair" but rather delivering, spreading and rolling stone to make an access road. At best the material facts are in dispute and at worst the evidence, including a written statement from an Organization witness, supports the Carrier's assertion of the facts. In either event, the claim must be denied for failure of proof that outside contractor employees performed the work of "roadbed repair."

AWARD