Form 1 NATIONAL IL ADJUSTMENT



                                          ocket loo. 3766

                                                04-3-0--


The Third Division consisted of the regular members n. in addition Referee obert erovicheand vas rendered.

                  (Brotherhood oailroad Signal en


PARTIES T DISPUTE:
                  (Transportation; In. (former Baltimore and i

                  ( Railroad Co piny)


STATEMENT F CLAIM:
      "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood ailroad Signal en on CSX Transportation, Inc. (CST):


        Claim on behalf of . . Kuhns, . crick, Jr., L. . Leister, R. D. all, . . Cal well, . . Dellinger, . . Gall, . C. Stricker n

      o esb rg, for all straight time and overtime hours worked

      y the Syste Signal l Construction Gang from October 31, 2001,

      through October 1, 2001, account Carrier violate the current

      Signal en's Agreement, particularly Cr Agreement 1

      1 -, when it use a Syste Signal Construction n t perform

      t maintenance work of installin t signals il,

      Pennsylvania an t signals lenc , Pennsylvania, that ere

      outside f the Froject at San patch, , Pennsylvania, and

      deprived the Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work.

      Carrier's File o.15(02- 5). General Chairman's File . E-2

      2- 2. BRS File Case .15- ."


I GS :

 The Third Division f the Adjustment Board, upon the whole recr an all t evidence, n s tat:
    r 1 Award o.372

    e 2 Docket . -7 66

    04-- 3-3-


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


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


      Parties to said dispute ere given due notice of hearin thereon.


t all material ties herein the Carrier utilize a Syste Signal Construction .Gang to install four new signals as part of a track structure capitalization project over a part of the Carrier's territory.


The Organization thereafter filed this claim, asserting that t or in
 question as maintenance work, rather than construction work, an thus, under
 T Labor Agreement o. 15-1 -4 that provides tat construction or is
 tat ". . : is involves the . . . major revision f existin systems," the work in
 uestion shoul have been assigne instead to the Claimants s as members of the,
 Carrier's local maintenance gag.

      e are not persuade sustain a clai herei for varie f reasons.


First, the recor reflects tat this very same dispute is not new to these
 parties on this property aclaims of i~ lype have bee over el i ly
 rejected y the Board. Thus, t clai coul a denireln this basis, the
 principle of re®,dl=cats, in n accordance with the prior holdings in, for example,
 Tit Division ars 6 1 a 362 . There is ever, n, an only e, prior
 war of the Third ivisi , Award 2 , that sustain, i art, a similar
 complaint. However, tat Award as routinely not t been followed and was, in Third
 Division r 6 , persuasively reasone away. n light of this to line
 persuasive precedent, an despite Award 2 , a fin tat without rear
 erits f the claim, it usdenied.

 oMoreover, en t merits of a clai are considered, e come to the v sae conclusion.
 Form 1 Award . 3725
 Page Docket -37666
 -3--3-

 First, i claims such s this where the Organization raises a jurisdictional
 dispute between employees of the same craft but in different classes, the
 Organization not only bears the burden of proof s it does in all contract
 interpretation cases, but that burden is even greater than it would be i other cases.
 See e.g., Third Division Awards 36633 and 3663. In addition, to et t t heavier
 burden, the Organization ust provide sufficient probative evidence trove that
 the work in question was indee maintenance work, and assertions to ill not
 stand that test: . See e.g., Third Division Award 36681,

 In or view the Organization failed to meet this standard. The record
 evidence shows that the project herein involved xe duration of time over a
 portion f the Carrier's territory. More importantly, the work in isto was a part
 of that project. Thus, like the work in Tirivisia1 , the work
 herein, althoug it might have some attributes of maintenancork, it can best b
 characterized as construction work because it was integral to the construction. r
 involve in the project.

      1 i id.


                        ORDER


is Board, after consideration n of the dispute identifled above, hereby orders.
 tat Award favorable t t lai ants) ) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ate t Chicago, Illinois, this 7t a October.