For 1 NATIONAL ADJUSTMENT
 BOARD
 THIRD SI
 Award .3724
 Docket o. 7663


The Third Division consisted of the regular r members and in addition Referee
 obert Perkovich when award was rendered.
    T S T DISPUTE:

    (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Baltimore and i

    ( ailroad Company)


STATEMENT F CL

      "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of te Brotherhood of

      ailroad Signalmen on Transportation, Inc. (CSXT):


      Clai n behalf f T. . Able, . . audenistel, C. . eitzer, . L.

      James, . . Kerrigan, . . euzer, T. J. 'c, S. . Scott and J. L.

      Smith, for 720 hours at the Signalmen's straight time rate of pay, 1

      hours t the Signalman's time and one half rate f ay, 1 hours at

      the Foreman's rate f ,170 hours at the Lead Signal en's straight

      time rate f pay an 3 hours at the Lead Signal man's tune e

      half rate pay, the divided equally among the Claimants, accn

      Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly

      CST Labor Agreement 15-1 -an Side Letter . 2, en i

      allowed Syste Signal Construction Tea 7 1 instead of

      Claimants to perfor the maintenance rk f reairig e

      cause y tie and surfacing unit between Hamilton, Ohio and


      Liberty, Indiana 25, 2001 November 2, 2 1, a

      deprived the Claimants the opportunity to perform this r.

      Carrier's File o. 15(2- 56). General Chairman's File e No. T/1-02-

      3- 2. S File Case .12- ."


        S:


The Third ivisi f e Adjustment Board, upon the hole recor n all the evidence, finds tat:
 For 1 .7
 Page Docket o. -376 3
 -3--3-
 The carrier or carriers and the employee r employees involve in this dispute are
 respectively carrier and employee within the meaning f the Railway Labor Act, as
 approved June 21,1934.
 This Division of the Adjustment Board as jurisdiction over the dispute involve

      arties to said dispute ere given due notice of hearing thereon.


t all material tines herein the Carrier utilized System Signal Construction
 a7 1to repair signal track wires and rail connectors that had een age
 during the performance of work performed by a tie and surfacin unit as part of a
 ajor construction capital project over a large swath of the Carrier's territory.

 The Organization thereafter file this claim, asserting that the work in estion s maintenance work, rather than construction work, and thus, under CST Labor Agreement o. 15-1 -that provides that construction work is tat ". . . is involves the . . . major revision f existing systems," the work in question should have been assigneinstead to the Claimants as members of the Carrier's local maintenance gang. e are not persuaded to sustaithe claim herein for a variety reasons.

 First, the record reflects that this very same dispute is not new to these parties on
 this roper and that the claims f this type h been overwhelmingly by t
 Board. Thus, the clai coin a denied purely o this basis, the principle f es
 ,u_ ict, in accordance with the prior holdings in, for example, Third Division Awards
 1 and 3 2 . There is however, one, and only one, prior r f the Third
 Division, and 32802, that sustained, in part, a similar complaint. However, tat
 Award as routinely not been followed nd was, in Third Division Award 36680,
 persuasively reasone away. light f this long line of persuasive precedent, and
 despite Award 3280 2, we fin tat without regar t merits f the claim, t must e
 denied.

 Moreover, hen a merits of the clai are considered, e come t t very same conclusion.
 For 1 .3724
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-37663
 4_3®03_3_

First, in claims such s this where the Organization raises furls diction al dispute between employees of the same craft but in different classes, t Organization not only bears the burden proof s it does in all contract interpretation cases, but that burden is even greater than it of be in other cases. See e. ., Third iviin .Awards 633 nd 3663. In addition, to meet that heavier burden, the Organization must provide sufficient probative evidence to rovtat the work in question s indeed maintenance work, and assertions alone will not stand that test. . See e.g., Third Division war 661.


In our view the Organization faile teet this standard. The recor evidence shows that the project herein involved a fixed duration of time n long portion f the Carrier's territ., ore importantly, the work in dispute was art of that project. Thus, lie the work in Third Division and 2951 , the work eei, although ii t have some attributes f maintenance or, it can best .be characterize s construction work becusit was integral to the construction work involved in the project.


                        AWARD


      Claim i.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identifled above, hereby orders that
 an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ate t i, Illinois, this t October.