"Claim on behalf of the General committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT):

Claim on behalf of . L. Cooper and J. S. Anderson, for 50 hours

straight time and 10 hours at the time and one-half each at their

respective rates of pay, account Carrier violated the current

Signalman's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule,, when it used

outside contractors to cut trees and brush that was interfering with the

pre-view of the Southward Absolute Signal l N.E. Miami/Plantation

from October , 2001, through October 15, 2001, and deprived the

Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File o.

02-003. General Chairman's. File o. SCL-02-22-02A. BRS File Case

o.1241 -CL."

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

The Claimants were assigned to Signal Gang o. 7Tat the time this dispute arose. Commencing October through October 12, 2001, outside contractors cut trees and brush along the right-of-way: Thereafter, on December 7, 2001, Messrs. Cooper and Anderson submitted two claims each, in which it as alleged that: "men from outside contractor used at SAKE Plantation to remove trees and brush from blocking view of signal." ®n January 2, 2002, the claims were denied by four letters in which the Carrier stated:

" ur investigation of your claim reveals that an outside contractor did, in fact, cut brush along the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the S

ICE Plantation. This property is owned by the State of Florida, DOT and they are responsible for any and all brush cutting, not CS. However, a signalman was present during this cutting to ensure that the contractors were clear of the track when it became necessary to run a train."

In subsequent appeal to the Carrier's highest designated officer, the

n his final denial of the claim, dated April , 2002 Senior Director - Labor Relations J. H. Wilson stated:

"In this case, the Organization's claim fails n several fronts. The rganization has not offered any probative documentation that the work at issue as interfering with any wires or related signal apparatus on the pole line. In fact, the Organization fails to mention i there were line wires at the location in dispute. Indeed, the signal system s operating properly and s not aversely affecte in any manner whatsoever. T fact that tree limbs and brush obscure

As in any contract dispute, the burden is on the Organization to demonstrate that a violation of the .Agreement occurred, premised upon probative record evidence. In these specific circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Organization to prove that the work in dispute, that of clearing trees and brush along a right-of-way, is BRS Scope covered work. However*, the record demonstrates that the right-of-way prope upon which the disputed work took place belongs to the State of Florida and, therefore, falls under the auspices of the State of Florida DOT. Nor is there any record evidence which indicates that the trees and brush the Florida DOT removed was interfering it the Carrier's signal or communications line, or any related equipment.

Under the circumstances, the Carrier's denial of the claim on its merits because tree and brush cutting is not reserved to Signal forces by Agreement language or historic practice is persuasive, and therefore, this claim must a denied.

AWARD