PARTIES, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Burlington Northern Railroad Company
 STATEMENT "l. That Carrier violated the effective agreement January
 OF CLAIM 23, 1981, when having Boilermakers' repair the steel
 tower on the transfer table at Livingston, Montana,
 instead of Bridge and Building (B&B)forces at that loca
 tion.
 2. That B&B employees, John Ewan, Bill Garcia and Tom
 Clark, shall be allowed four hours each at their
 respective straight-time rates of pay."

 FINDINGS -

 Upon the whole reocrd, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 At the repair shop at the location in Montana, Carrier maintains, among other pieces of equipment, an electrically-operated motorized transfer table. At one end of the transfer table, a metal stanchion is mounted which is approximately twenty feet high. That stanchion is used to support the electrical wires and rollers to supply power for the transfer table. On January 23, 1981, the silent hoist ran into this steel tower and damaged it. The damage was such that it could not be used any longer to make contact with the electrical source. Carrier found it necessary to remove the stanchion or tower and rebuild it and replace it. Shop machinists were used to remove the stanchion. Shop boilermakers built a new one and shop machinists then installed a new stanchion on the transfer table. This dispute was as a result of these actions.

 Petitioner in its arguments relies primarily on the scope rule as well as Rule 55(I) and the note to that rule to support its position. Petitioner's argument, in essence,
                        3ke°-4-7 2


.. that the steel tower Falls within the category of "other structures" specified
 under Rule 55(1) and, therefore, the repair, which involved the remova, rivets
 and riveting steel again, should have been,performed by employees cover. by the
 Organization's agreement. Thus, it is argued that the use of boilermakers to
 perforR. ;,his work was in violation of the agreement since it should have been
 accomplished by meq;hers of the .Steel Bridge and Building Mechanics group. In
 essence the Organ Zation maintains that the v:ork in question is the repair of the -
 steel structure. Petitioner further suggests that it is clear that the steel
 tower is of solid riaid construction and cannot be confused with any other type
 of structure, such as the boom, which Carrier had argued. :itioner also relies -
 on Rule 69, dealing with pre-existing rights which accrue t.. employees who had
 been covered in this instance by similar rules in effect on the predecessor -
 carrier, Northern Pacific. Thus, it is concluded that Carrier was obligated to
 assign the work of repairing the steel tower to the claimants herein and they
 were by virtue of Carrier's actions deprived of work reserved to them under prior
 agreements, as well as the terms of Rule 55(1). It is also suggested by the
 petitioner that Carrier failed to abide by the note to Rule 55 dealing with noti
 fication to the Organization of impending work to be transferred out of the unit
 or performed by non-agreement personnel.

 Carrier argues-that the work in question does not acerue t0 employees covered by this agreement. Carrier notes that the particular work of repairing a transfer table or stanchion in the diesel shop, as is the case herein, is not described in Rule 55. Such work, according to Carrier, cannot be considered work on a structure or steel bridge. Thus, it is incumbent upon petitioner, according to Carrier, to establish by the preponderance of evidence that the work in questiol. has been done throughout Carrier's facilities to the exclusion of all other · ~loyees by employees covered by the agreement, No such evidence has been prese.-ited, according to Carrier. Carrier notes further that there was n0 evidence that twelve hours were actually used in the performing of the work in question and Carrier also denies petitioner's argument that boilermakers were the employees who had pefformed the particular activity. In substance, Carrier argues that the claim herein is not supported under any rules of the agreement.

 The principles involved in this dispute have been dealt with in many prior awards, both throughout the industry and on this property, As well. The crux of the dispute
 PLB 3460 3
 AWARD N0. 47
 CASE N0. 47
 is the relevance of the particular work and relationship of that work to the
 language contained in both the scope rule and in Rule 55. There is no doubt
 that the scope rule in this agreement is general in nature and the classification
 of work rule is specific in the sense of the literal reservation of work to cer
 tain employees but, in this instance, the work in question is not specified in
 Rule 55. Thus, based on well-established principles, if the Organization is to
 prevail in this claim, it would be incumbent upon the Organization to establish
 that the particular type of work had been at least customarily performed by other
 employees covered by the, agreement in other areas on Carrier's property. This
 has not been done. In fact, it could not have been done since the Carrier's
 evidence indicates that this is the first instance in the history of the Carrier
 in which the particular type of structure, the electrical stanchion, had been
 repaired or replaced. Furthermore, the Board must note that the claim, with
 respect to twelve hours of work, is unsupported by any evidence of record with
 respect to the activity of the other crafts.
 The Board finds that Rule 55(1) does not expressly reserve the particular type of
 work in question to claimants. The terms ".... general structural erection,
 replacement, maintaining or dismantling of steel in bridges, buildings and other
 structures ...." is not applicable to the particular structure herein with any
 degree of specificity. Clearly, for example, the function of riveting steel is
 not work which can be reserved exclusively to claimants in this instance since
 such work is obviously performed by boilermakers as well throughout the property.
 In substance, therefore, since the specific rule does not reserve the work in
 question herein, the Organization has made no showing on the record that the work
 has been reserved by custom, practice and tradition to members of the particular
 craft involved herein. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed for failure to
 establish either specific agreement language in support of the claim or proof.

 AWARD
            Claim dismissed.

                        g~ya- ~)

                        4


                      .


                    i


                  1. M, Lie erman, N'eutra -Chairman


Water Hp ynsl~y, Car er hle er 46Z F un <, Unp oye , em er -

 St. Paul, Minnesota July 3/, 1986