the requirements of Article IV of the Agreement and the December 11, 1981 Letter of Understanding. In particular, the letter objected that the Notice did not identify the work's scheduled commencement and completion dates, and that it lacked an exact location, the number of employees and work hours contemplated, a specifc, complete description of the work to be performed by the outside forces and the, reasons for the subcontracting. On August 25, 2003, , the Carrier, by letter, confirmed that the parties had held a conference that day during which they discussed the proposed subcontracting, including the Organization's position that the work was reserved to its members and the Carrier's contention that the Carrier had a practice of contracting the work.

Thereafter, the Organization filed the instant claim, asserting that the Carrier had violated various Agreement provisions when it subcontracted Water Service Sub-department work in the El Paso Yard. The claim noted that the subcontractor's employees renewed a gas line, utilizing a backhoe and a trencher, equipment owned by the Carrier or readily available for rental. The claim asserted that the "simple work" could have been performed by Claimants, especially as the work had historically and exclusively been performed by the Water Service Subdepartment and the Claimants were fully qualified and available to perform the work.

The Organization presented two statements, one from Claimant Edgar and another from another employee. Claimant Edgar's statement provided, in relevant part:

"My job was to maintain & service the train way pumps located in the bank. . . On several occations (sic) we (water-service mechanics) would replace & repair the plumbing in the trainway (diesel engine, check valves, motor, etc.). Whenever the trainway pumps failed the water service was responsible to get the pumps repaired & replaced, to get the water out of the trainway or no train traffic could pass through."

"I . . . a water service mechanic worked on the train way pumps in El Paso Texas for several years . . . On Fridays my job was to check, repair, replace, the pumps check valves and motors and diesel engine, under the bank building. The purpose was that the train way would not get full of water and stop all train movement. This was our job for many years."

There is no question in this case, contrary to the situations in numerous cases cited by the Organization, that the Carrier provided a 15-day notice of its intent to subcontract and the parties thereafter discussed the matter in conference. Nevertheless, the Organization asserts that it should prevail because the Notice was defective. We need not decide this issue, however, because the Organization has not met its initial burden of demonstrating that the work in question was arguably scope-covered so as to trigger the Agreement's notice provisions.

While the Organization asserts that the Agreement's scope provisions clearly demonstrate that the parties intended that gas line repair be encompassed within basic water service maintenance and repair work, it is well settled that the Scope Rule is general in character and does not lend support to the Organization's claim to the particular work in question. In addition, the record does not include any evidence that the Organization's members have performed the work in question. The two statements, provided by one Claimant and another Water Service Mechanic, speak to a completely different sort of work and never state that the employees performed the work here in question, that is gas line replacement.

Therefore, the Organization provided only a general assertion, unsupported by any specifics, that the employees had actually performed the disputed work or were otherwise entitled to perform it. Because the Organization failed to present evidence to meet its initial burden of proof, the claim must be denied. (See Third Division Award 36515 and cases cited therein.)

AWARD