For 1 NATIONAL ILT BO
 THIRD SI



The Third Division consisted of the regular embers an in addition Referee obert Perkovich when and was rendered.

                  (Brotherhood of Railroad Signal en

P TIES T DISPUTE:
 (CSX Transortation, Inc. (former Baltimore and i
 ( :Railroad Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

        "Claim n behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood f ailroad Signalmen on CS Transportation, Inc. (CST):


      Clai on behalf of T. . Ale, . . auenistel, C. . Heitzer, . L. James, G. . Kerrigan, C. . ezer, T. J. 'c, S. . Scott and J. L. Smith, for 785 hours t the Signal en's rate of pa, 220 hours t the Signal Foreman's rate of pay, 200 hours at the Lead Signalmen's rate of ay an 21 hours t time and one half the Lea Signalman's rate o pay, to be divide equally among the Claimants, account Carrier violated the current Signal en's Agreement, particularly CST Labor Agreement 15-1 -9, hen it allowed Syste Signal Construction g 7 1 to erfor maintenance work between Sidney and a akoneta, Ohio, starting September 5, 2001 to October 11, 20 1, n deprive the Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File

      15(02- of ). General Chairman's File . T/I-1-1- 1- 2. BRS File

      Case o.1240- ."


FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
 Form 1 Award No. 37247
 e 2 Docket o. S -3761
                                                -3--3-7


The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involve in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor t, as proved June 21,1934.

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

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


Between September and October 11, 2001 the Carrier utilized Syste Signal Construction Gang 7X16, consisting of four Signalmen and Foreman, tree lrga swath of territory on its Indianapolis Subdivision for a System Track team that
 as to perform major construction project involving tie and surfacing work. More' specifically, the work in question consisted of removing hundreds of staples from track leads, removing hundreds of fasteners for termination tie shunts and markin signal wires so that they would a visible for the track forces that were completin the construction project that as scheduled for a confined and fixed perio of time.

      The Organization tereaer file this claim, assertin that the work iuestin

as maintenance work, rather than construction work, and thus, under CST Labor Agreement o. 1-1-that provides that construction work is that `1. . . is

 involves the . . . major revision f existing systems," the work in question should been assigned instea to the Claimants s members f the Carrier's local maintenance
 gang.
 a are not persuaded to sustain the clai herein for a vane f rens.

 First, the record reflects tat this very same dispute is not new to these parties on this roper and that claims of this type have been overwel inlre;cte the Board. Thus, the clai could a denied purely on this basis, the principle f
    i res

®ata, i accordance it therior r holdings in, for example, Third Division Awards
 3 1 n 3620. There is however, one, n only one, prior and f the. Tit
 Division, war 2 2, tat sustained, i part, a similar complaint. However, tat
 Award s routinely not been followed an was, in Third Division Award 3 ,
 ersuasively reasoned a y. I light f this long lire f persuasive recnt, a
 despite Award 3280 , a fin tat without regard to t a merits f the claim, it must e
 enied.
 For .37247
 Page Docket . -3761
                                                -3- -3-757


Moreover, hen the merits f the clai are considered, e come the very same conclusion.


First, in clis such s this where the Organization raises jurisdictional dispute between employees f the same craft but in different classes, the Organization not only bears the burden f proof as it does in all contract interpretation cases, but that burden is even greater than it would a in other cases. See . ., Third Division Awards 36633 and 3663. In addition, to meet that heavier burden, the Organization must provide sufficient probative evience tr ve ~ th t the work iusti vas indeed maintenance work, and assertions alone ill not stand that test. . ., Thir

Division war 36 1.

 In our view the Organization faile to meet this s standard. The'retord evidence
 shows that the project herein involved fixed duration of tie a a long portion the
 Carrier's territory. More importantly, the work in dispute s a art of tt project
 and involved hundreds and hundreds tasks during that fixed period over that
 large territory. s; like the e work in Third Division Award 29518, the work herein,'
 although it might have some attributes f maintenance o, it at
 characterized construction work because it s integral t the construction r
 involve i the project.

                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                            E


This Board, after consideration f the dispute i e tie above, s that
 an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
 TI
 By Order of Third Division

 ate t c, Illinois, t t y October
                                2004.