"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad Company:

Claim on behalf of J., G. Niebues and G. P. Butler for payment of 40 hours each at the straight time rate. Account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, when on October 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25, 1999 Carrier allowed outside contractors to installl an Automatic Equipment Identification (AEI) device at Mile Post 1)1.25 on the Kansas City Service Unit between Lawrence and Topeka, Kansas depriving the Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 1213751. General Chairman's File No. Nscope-016. BRS File Case No. 11483UP."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

The Claimants in this case were assigned to the positions of Signal Gang Foreman and Signalman respectively at Topeka, Kansas. They were fully employed on their regular assignments when the Carrier utilized the services of an outside contractor to install Automatic Equipment Identification (AEI) equipment in the territory covered by the Claimants.

The Organization alleged that the AEI equipment is activated through the signal system and is therefore covered by the Scope Rule of the Agreement. It further contended that the installation of such a device had always been recognized as signal work and therefore is reserved to employees covered by the Agreement.

The Carrier insisted that the work associated with AEI installation is not covered by the Scope Rule and that the Organization failed to offer any evidence to show that such work had been exclusively performed by signal employees on a system-wide basis.

From the Board's review of the case record, we find that the work of installing AEI equipment is not specifically covered by the Scope Rule here involved. The record is devoid of any proof or evidence that such work had been exclusively performed by Signalmen in the past. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that the AEI equipment affects or is otherwise connected to the signal system that controls the movement of trains. These contentions as made by the Carrier were never refuted or otherwise disproven by the Organization. In short, the Organization's burden of proof has not been met. Therefore, the claim is denied.

AWARD