Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award o. 372 0~
 Docket No. - 6411
 04-3-00-3-645

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee herald E. Wallin whey ward was rendered.


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of ay Employes PARTIES TO DISUTE.·


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:






















Form 1 Award o. 372
 Page 2 Docket o. -36411
 04-3-00-3-
 () The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Track
 Sub-department employee (Cambridge Section forces) to
 perform fridge and Building dub-department work (drive
 piling and related work) on August 21, 22, 2, 4, September
 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 2, October 2, 3, 4 and 9,1995 in the vicinity
 of Orasston, Minnesota on the Hinkley Subdivision of the Lake
 Superior Division instead of ridge and building Sub
 department Seniority District 12 Foreman W. W.
 Schadewald, First Class Carpenters D. L. Johnson, . .
 esvol, . A: McNair and Truck Driver . L. ossberger
 (System File T-D-1031- 95-12-27A ).
 (4) The Carrier violated the Agreement hen it assigned Track
 Sub-department employes. (Superior and A.llouez Section
 forces) to perform ridge and Building Sub-department work
 (drive piling and related work) on November 2, 3, 6, 7, , 9,10,
 29, 30, and December 1,1995 on territory within the Terminal
 area on the Lakes and Allouez Subdivisions of the Lake
 Superior Division instead of ridge and Building Sub-














For 1 Ar o.70
 Pge 3 Docket loo. -3b11
 04--0-3-4
 L. Johnson, . . Besvol, . AMcNair and Truck Driver
 L. ossberer shall now be compensated for an equal aid
 proportionate share of two hundred eighty-eight (288) man
 hors expended y the Track Sub-department forces in the
 performance of the above-mentioned work at their respective
 straight time rates of pay.
 (7) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (3) above,
 B Foreman . . Schadewald, First Class Carpenters D.
 L. Johnson, . . esvold, . . McNair and Truck Driver
 L. 1Vlossberger shall now be compensated for an equal and
 proportionate share of four hundred forty-eight (4)- an
 hours expended by the Track Sub-department forces in the
 performance of the above-mentioned work at their respective
 straight time rates of pay.


FINDINGS:

evi ece, Ends that:

 The carrier r carriers and the employee or employees involved i this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meanin2 of the Railway Labor Act, s approved June 21,1934.
 Form 1 Award No. 37280
 Pg 4 oet o. -36411

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


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


This dispute combines four infra-craft claims that were consolidated for handling after the first two levels of handling on the property. The correspondence for the first o levels is present for each claim. Thereafter, the claims were handled together:


The claims all concern essentially the same work in different locations on different dates. The work consisted of driving steel piling into the soil for the purpose of stabilization of banks and roadbed. It is undisputed that the Carrier used Track Sub-department employees to perform the work instead of Sudeprtrr,et employees.


The Organization relied on Rules 1, 2, 5, and 5 in support of its position. The Scope ale (Rule l) is general in that it does not specifically mention reservation of work or the work of pile driving. Rules 2 and 5 are Seniority ales that similarly do not mention the work in question. The remaining ale, Rule , is a classification of work ale that, like the others, dues not mention the r in question. Indeed, Rule S5F, which pertains to First Class Carpenter, actually restricts the description of work classified to that pertaining to ". . , construction, repair, maintenance or dismantling of buiIdins or brides . . . ." (Emphasis added) n this record, the disputed work id not involve either buildings or bridges.


Given the actual text f the Agreement language cited, the Organization is
 required to rove reservation of work y past performance. Although the parties
 sparred over the proper standard of proof, the precedent on this proper requires
 that the Organization prove that Sub-department employees have performed
 all such pile driving work exclusively n a system-wide basis. See, for examples,
 Third Division ward 1441 and ward 55 Of Public Law oar. 22 6 and
 and 17 of Public La Board No. 3460.

 Both rties provide statements to sureir respective assertions f exclusive past performance and mixed-practice. The Organization also provided a
    r l r , 372 0

    Docket . -3641

----5
 9 letter fro a harrier official purporting to conce a reservation of the disputed
 work to employees according to his understanding. The official's letter
 pertained the Montana ivision. The harrier countered that, if true, t local
 r official could not opine system-wide.

 As noted previously, both rtiesitte documents about past practice
 ..consistent .with their positions'. The bulk of the Organization's statements are fro
 ectinen r Track en ho deny having performed thdisputed or it
 past: The harrier's statements, on the other hand, show' art performance y other
 than employees t locations both in and outside of Montana. , Accordingly, we
 have conflicting evidence regarding syste -wide e past performance of the disputed
 or. Given e appellate nature or review authority, have effective
 ear of resolvin such irreconcilable disputes of material fact. Under the
 circumstances, a must deny the claims for ailin t satisfy the burden establish exclusive art performance oa system-wide sir.

                          AWARD


      Claim denied.


                            E


s Board, after consideration f t it identifled above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


      t Chicago, Illinois, this t f November o