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.

The core issue in this dispute is whether the crossbucks in question were installed on Carrier property or property owned by the City of Detroit.

The Organization contends that the work was done on Carrier property, thus requiring the Carrier to provide notice and to comply with the Scope Rule. It submitted seven photographs into the record purportedly showing that the crossbucks were, in fact, installed on Carrier property.

The Carrier, to the contrary, repeatedly asserted that it had not contracted for the work and that the work was not performed on its property. It contended that the property was owned by the City of Detroit. The Carrier also introduced pertinent text of Michigan laws, Section 311(1) that places responsibility for the installation of passive traffic control devices upon the state Department of Transportation.

The Organization, in turn, noted that the same statute, in Section 315(4) required the railroad to do the work when "standard active railroad-highway traffic control devices" are installed.

Our review of the record does not show the claim to have merit. The work involved was the installation of crossbucks by themselves. They were not part of a system with flashing lights and moving gates. As such, they are passive devices governed by Section 311(1) and not "standard active railroad-highway traffic control devices" within the meaning of Section 315(4). Thus, under the statute, the installation work was the responsibility of the state road authority and not the Carrier.

While the photographs in the record do show the individual crossbucks, they do not show the location of property lines. At best, they show the signs were installed near Carrier property. In this regard, we note the following text from the original Claim:

"The crossbucks were installed in the Delray area of southwest Detroit, at various industrial track crossings. This area is southeast of Delta Yard where there are several businesses such as Wayne Soap Company, a City of Detroit water treatment facility, a large paper company (formerly Scott Paper), etc."

In claims of this kind, it is the Organization's sole burden of proof to establish that the work was done on Carrier property for the Carrier's benefit. Both public and private property was in close proximity to the Carrier's property. If the work was not performed on the Carrier's property, as the Carrier asserts, it was not obligated in any respect under the Scope Rule. Accordingly, no notice to the General Chairman was required. On this record, the Organization has not satisfied its burden of proof. The evidence does not establish that the work was done on Carrier property. Thus, no violation of the Agreement has been proven.

AWARD