PARTTOIES_ Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes.
 DISPUTE: and
 Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company
 STATEMENT Claim of B&8 Foreman J. D. Jewell and B&B Carpen
 CLRTM: ters A. Clary, J.E. Coran and R.E. Smith far a
 total of 210 hours on May T, 2, 3 and 5, 1978 on
 account of Tunnel Force grouting Bridge 12-38 at
 Wilmington, Ohio.
 FINDINGS: Claimants are B & B employes. They were assigned
 to install a 30-inch pipe and grout the arch of
 Bridge 12-38 at Wilmington, Ohio. The work was
 interrupted by cold.weather. When conditions per
 mitted resumption of the work, a tunnel force was
 used to complete the fob while claimants were as
 signed to make- steal repairs on Bridge 41-62 at
 Cuba, Ohio. There is no evidence that claimants
 lost any pay or were subjected to undue inconven
 ience by reason of the assignment change.
 The work in question consisted of concreting the
 end of the arch by using a pressure tank, the gunite method by secur
 ing the grouting.
 ?LB - 2778 Award No. 25 2

 It is Petitioner's position that the work of grouting bridge 12-38 belonged to claimants under Rule 1(c) of the applicable agreement. Petitioner states that the gunite method involves spraying by machine a mixture of sand and concrete on the walls and overhead of bridges and tunnels. Rule 1(c) reads as follows:

 "Carpentry, painting, glazing, tinning, roofing, plastering, brick laying, paving, masonry and concreting required in the construction and maintenance of railroad structures, other-than tunnels, shall be performed by the B&B forces. Such work in tunnels and all concreting by the gunite method shall be-performed by tunnel forces." Since "all" concreting by the gunite belongs to tunnel forces, it was not incompatible with the terms of the Agreement (which incidentally covers tunnel as well as B&B forces) for Carrier to assign the'disputed work to tunnel employes." The Petitioner's contention that the tunnel force would have had to build forms to secure the grout is not supported by competent.evidence, although the burden of proof rests with Petitioner. Carrier maintains, and has submitted evidence, that the tunnel force secured the concrete by placing and stacking sand bags at each end of the arch. of the bridge. There is no basis in this record for sustaining this claim.
 PLB - 2778 Award No. 25 3
 AWARD: Claim denied.