For 1 TI IL ADJUSTMENT HI DIVISION




The Third Division consiste of the regular members an in addition Referee obert Perkovich when award was rendered.

    (Brotherhood of Railroad Signal en TIES TO DISPUTE:

                  (The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company


STATEMENT F CL
        "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood o ailroad Signalen o the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Cany (former Burlington Northern Railroad):


      Clai on behalf of . A. Hastings and . J. Qual for 2 hours each

      t the ti a and one-half rate plus Skill Differential pay equivalent t

      $0.85 per hour for ours each. Account Carrier violate

      current Signal en's Agreement, particularly t Scope Rule and

      Rules land , he on April 2, 2000 Carrier use outsi

      forces (Ernst Trenching Co.,) to isll conduit an conduit systems

      under the main track t of 21.90 n 1. i Moorhead,

      arrier's action deprive the Claimants of the opportunity to

      perfor this work. Carrier's File o. 4 00 0021. . General

      Chairman's File . TC-17-200. BRS File s.1175 - ."


FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, fi s tat:

 The carrier r carriers a employee employees involve i this io
 e respectively carrier an employee within the meaning the ail t,
 s rove a 21,1 .
 r 1 age 2

 Award .7
 Docket . 36 00
 4-3-01-3-

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

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


The record reflects that on the material dates herein the Carrier utilized the services of n outside contractor that used hydropower technology to ore under

 tracks at 21.90 and P 41.6 t Moorehead, Minnesota. T purpose work as to install conduit without trenchin across the area. The Organization
 contends that such work is maintenance work and that the Carrier violate the
 parties' Scope Rule hen it did not assign that work to the Claimants. The Carrier,
 n the other hand, contends that the work in question has bee the subject of prior
 Third Division wars that have held tat because "boring" is not liste in the
 otherwise precise and thorough listing of work in the parties' Scope Rule, it is nt
 work that must be assigned to t bargaining unit.

      In Thir Division Awards 2453 , 32796, and 3416 , on the same proper an

involving the same parties, the Third Division has held that the parties' ca Rule
 has a specific listin of the e f work included within its terms and that the listin
 therein does not included boring. Thus, the holding in se cases s that the
 claims must a denied. The only argument to a contrary a put rtei
 t Organization, is tat the language f the Scope Rule changed since those
 decisions ere rendered. The Organization is indeed correct that t roes v
 since revise their Scope Rule, but the differences between the current language n
 t prior language is a difference without distinction. That is, the current
 language is still n eras eve ore, specific an still does not include within its
 terms boring. Thus, the rationale relie upon by the prior Third D.ivision Awards
 remains applicable and we so hold.

 Claim denied.

 AWARD
 For I r . 7
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-36800
 4®_1_

                            E


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identie above, hereby orders that an and favorable to tli ants) not e made.

                        TI ADJUSTMENT

                                                BOARD

                        Order f Third Division.


ated t Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of October 00.