For 1
TI IL ADJUSTMENT


Award o.7
 Docket : -376
 4-3- - -

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition ere obert erkovicen award was rener.

PARTIES TG DISPUTE:

.STATEMENT F CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee f the Brotherhood f
 ailroa Signalmen on CS Transportation, Inc. (CST):

Clai obehalf of . . hens, J. crick, Jr., . . Leister, R. D. Hall, . . Caldwell, . . Delliger, A. P. Gall, . C. Stricker n

o esurg, for all strait time and overtime ours worked
 by the Syste Signal Construction Gang starting September 10,
 21 a continuin for the following five e weeks, to be divided
 'equally among the Claimants, account Carrier violated the current
 Signalmen's Agreement, particularly C T Labor Agreement 15
 1 -, hen it used Syste Signal Construction Gang perfor
 the maintenance work orepairing ama cause y tie an
 surfacing unit o the Baltimore East End territory, deprived e
 Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's l
 . 15(02-0 ). General Chairman's File o. --2- 2. S
 File Case .12407- ."

 FINDINGS:
The it Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole recur a all t evidence, rinds that:
 r 1
 Page

 r .72
 Docket . -7 65
 -3-3-3-7

 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 t, s approved June 21; 1934.

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

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


t all material times herein the Carrier utilized Syste Signal Construction
 an to reair signal track wires and rail connectors damduring aged the
 performance of work performed by a tie and surfacing unit as part f major
 construction capital project over a large swath the Carrier's territory.

      The Organization thereafter file this claim, assertin that t work in

question s maintenance work, rather than construction work, and thus, under
 C T Labor Agreement o.1 -1 -4 tat provides that construction n work is that
 hich involves the . . . major revision of existin systems," the work in question
 should have been assigne instead to te Claimants as members f the Carrier's
 local maintenance gang.
 e are not persuaded to sustain the clai herein for varie f ress.

 First, the recor reflects that this very same dispute is not new to these, parties n this proper and that claims of t® e have been overwhelming
 l
 rd ecte , the Board. Thus, the clai coul ld be denied purely on this basis, the
 principle res '_ judicaa, in accordance with the prior holdings in, for example,
 Tit Division Awards 366 1 an 362 . There is ever, e, a only n, prior
 Award of e Tit Division, r 32 2, tat sustained, i art, similar
 complaint. However, t war as routinely been folio s, i Tit
 Division r 6 , persuasively reasone away. I light this ion line f
 persuasive precedent, and despite a2 2, a find that without regard t t
 erits of the claim, it t denied.

 Moreover, hen the merits f t claim re considered, come the very same conclusion.
 For 1 .724
 age Docket . -37665
 -3--3-7
 First, in clis such s this here the Organization raises jurisdictional
 dispute between employees e same craft t in different classes, the
 rganization not only bears the burden of proof as it does in 11 ctract
 interpretation cases, but that burden is even greater than it would a in other cases.
 e e.g., Third Division Awards 36633 d 36635. In aitin, to meet that heavier
 burden, the Organization must provide sufficient probative evidence rove that
 the work in estion s indeed work, and assertions lone ill t
 stand that test: See e.g., Third Division and 366 .

 in or vie the Organization failed teet this standard. The record evidence shows that the project herein involve a fixed duration f tie and a long portion of the Carrier's territr. More i portantly, the work in dispute s art
 .of . that project. Thus, like the work in Third Division , t
 herein, altu it might have some attributes 'of it can best characterize s constructio work because it was integral to tc stcoon o
 involve in t project.
 AWARD
 Claim denied.
 ORDER

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

                      L

                      By Order of Third Division


to t i, Ill, this t.