"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF):

Claim on behalf of D. J. Meech, R. D. Christianson, J. E. Griffin, L. J. Eich and C. J. Oksanen, for 34 hours of time and one-half rate of pay to be divided equally among the Claimants, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 1, the Scope Rule, when it allowed non-covered employees to install permanent snow removal systems on switches at Northtown Yard on July 30 and 31, 2001, and on August 13 and 14, 2001, and deprived the Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 35 Ol 0062. General Chairman's File No. 01-107-BNSF154-TC. BRS File Case No. 12561-BNSF."

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

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

As Third Party in Interest, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was advised of the pendency of this dispute and chose to file a Submission with the Board.

On July 30, 31, August 13 and 14, 2001, an outside contractor (directional boring crew) and IBEW-represented Engineering Department Electricians installed

It 11 la l l 111ilt i al ua 111 ivillllleavuus, Mlnnesuta. 1 he lucauon of the

work is on the former Northern Pacific (NP) Railway Company. The Organization argues that the work was performed on automatic snow removing equipment included in Rule 1 which states: "Blower, gas, electric or other types of automatic snow removing systems permanently located at switches." The Organization asserts throughout this dispute that the Scope Rule existed on the former NP and the work performed historically on that property associated with electric switch heaters was performed by_ Signal Department employees. As such, the Carrier violated the Agreement.

The Carrier argues that it did not violate the Scope Rule in the work

jaeeinnmnn* hnnanco thn wnrlr nnrfnrmnrl hurl nn*hi_n *n do . >i*h c nl .. -E- T1...

In its Third Party Response to the Board the IBEW pointed to its Agreement

heaters." it argued that this work belongs to 1BEW Electricians - not Signalmen. It stated that:

"The equipment noted in this dispute is directly related to the installation of switch heaters on hand-throw switches. The switches in question are not connected to a signal system in any way . . . ."

Tha Rnnrd ruviawad fha Qnnna Pnla *ha ainrlanra of rarnrrl and tha

arguments of the parties. Central to our decision is the nature of the work performed. The dispute centers on the installation of switch heaters on hand-throw switches. The Organization has the burden to demonstrate that this work belongs

n.

A review of the Agreements between the Carrier and the IBEW and Signalmen does not clearly document that this work is Signalmen's work. The inclusion of prior Carrier statements from another claim is not on point and related to "hand-throw switches." A review of the nature of switches; from Cal Rod electric, remote controlled, those installed on Speed Freighter, or solar powered, does not demonstrate that "hand-throw switches" were by historical practice the work off the Claimants. The Organization has the burden of demonstrating that the electric switch heaters disputed in this record were those exclusively installed and maintained by Signalmen. This is absolutely essential when challenged by another

The burden of proof has not been met to demonstrate that the work disputed belongs to Signalmen. The Board finds neither language nor past practice indicating that Signalmen have installed switch heaters on hand-throw switches. There is nothing in the language of the Agreement that explicitly includes hand 4hx.naxr ca.ritnhoc Thara ie nn nnnnro~a nrnnf *hn4 +hi. a..nAr ie rannnniva.l c nl ,x n,.lr

AWARD