Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD T BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 and o.37 1
 Docket o. -3b1
 0-r01--200

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Virgo . Newman when award was rendered.


STATEMENT F CL









          s a consequence of te violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant J. . Trii shall now be compensated for eight (8) hours' ay at the Class "A." Aerator straight time rate of ay and be allowed credit towards vacation and all other benefits for February 1, 2 0."


FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the hole record n all e evidence, finds that:

 The carrier carriers and the employee or employees this is
 are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,,
 approved Juke 1,1 .
 For 1 Award 0.37271
 Page Docket o. -6b1
 04-3-01-3-200
 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
 involved herein.

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


s Third Party in Interest, the Transport Workers Union of America was advised of the pendency of this dispute, which chose not to file Submission* with the Board.


This claim involves the Carrier's assignment of a car shop employee to operate a front end loader to remove snow from tracks, a roadway, and parking area t the Frontier Yard shop. The Claimant was a furloughed Class "" Machine0

Aerator on the claim date.

 The organization contends that the Scope Rule is clear and unambiguous and
 expressly reserves the work of snow removal from track structures to BMWE
 representedemployees, citing Third Division .Awards 317 2 and 32344. It asserts
 that any alleged past practice to the contrary is irrelevant in the face of clear
 contract language, aid way dot proven y the Carrier. Because the Claimant was
 awaiting recall fro layoff, the Organization argues that this instance represents a
 true loss of work opportunity for him and entitles hi to o monetary relieL

 The Carrier argues that the work in issue herein is not reserved to BMWE
 represented employees the Scope Rule,, which covers snow removal from.
 track structures and the right-of-way, not roads and parking lots, and, in any event,
 would fall within the exception to the cope Rule ecase it s admittedly beep
 performed shop craft employees in the past and at the time the Agreement s
 negotiated. The Carrier contends that snow royal is not exclusive to t
 Organization, noon that the cope Rule permits a loses previously performing
 such work on the pro to continue s, chin Third Division ar .

 A careful review of the record on the property s the Board that t
 Organization fails t- sustain its -burden of proving that the Carrier vit t -
 sops Rule its assignment f the snow royal k in this case. Determinative in this case is the following language of t Scope Rule:
 Form I Award No. 37-271
 age Docket o. -1
 0-®01- -- o0
 "It is agreed that in the application of this scope that any work
 which is being performed on the property of any former component
 railroad y employees other than employees covered by this
 Agreement may continue to a performed by such other employees
 t the locations at which such work vas performed y past practice
 or agreement on the effective date of this Agreement;. . ."
 During the processing of the claim on the property, the Organization
 submitted a typewritten statement of former employee Edward. uflita, Jr. who
 worked at Frontier Ward and was op the ® ..T.. Labor-Mangeent Team in
 199. Therein he explains that the type of ark disputed in this claim had beep
 performed by a Machine Operator before his retirement in the mid-1980's, but since
 that time when his position was mot advertised, there has been inter-department
 squabbling with regard to performance of the work, with the Car apartment doing
 the snow removal on an as needed basis. uita's statement boas on to state that the
 far Department supervisor was willing to have r Track Department employee
 assigned to the car shop to perform this work within its budget, but the Track
 Department was not 'amenable because it was shorthanded and could not spare the
 position, hen the matter-could, not resolved, the Car Department rented
 equipment which it used to remove snow in and around the car, shop, s it did on the
 claim date. This statement clearly establishes that car shop employees have been
 performing the disputed snow removal work at this location since t least the i
 190's, an has used the front end loader to do o since t.least 1998. Be c*ause car
 shop employees ere doing this work t the time the Agreement entered into in
 199, the Carrier established that it falls within the exception n to the Scope Rule
 language noted, bov, and that complying with this existing practice. does of
 violate the Agreement.

                        AWARD


      Claim denied.

Form 1 ward o. 37271
 age Docket o. -36661
 -3-01-- o0
 This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
 that an Award favorable to the laiant(s) got be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD JIJT ENT BOARD

                      By rder of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of November 2(104.