Parties to the Dispute
REVISED COPY
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO . 1016

 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM




...8 hours each day Mr. Brutsman works this job plus all the overtime he makes working this job ....

 OPINION OF THE BOARD
Case No. 24 A,Na. zU

 C. A. Brutsman was assigned to a Class 2 Operator position operating a brushcutter. On occasion between January 10, 1986, and March 13, 1986, Mr. Brutsman operated a Class I machine, a Torsion Beam. Claimant K. R.

Sindoni, a furloughed Class I Operator, contended that he ought to have been recalled to operate the Torsion Beam, since Brutsman had no seniority as a Class I Operator,.even though he was senior to Claim-. ant as a Class II Operator.
 Carrier argued that the Torsion Beam was not utilized on a regular basis, and certainly not enough to warrant establishment of a position

 and recall of an employe to fill it. It also relied on

 the fourth paraqraph of the Scope Rule
 and Rule 19 to support its actibn in this instance. Those Rules read in pertinent part as follows:

          The listing of the various classifications in Rule 1 is not intended to require the establishment or to prevent the abolishment of positions in any classification, nor to require the maintenance of positions in any classification is not intended to assign work exclusively to that classification. It is understood that employees of one classification may perform work of another classification subject to the terms of this Agreement.


                        RULE 19


          An employee may be temporarily assigned to different classes of work within the range of his ability. In filling the position which pays a higher rate, he shall receive such rate for the time thus employed, except, if assigned for more than four (4) hours, he shall receive the higher rate for the entire tour. If assigned to a lower rated position, he will be paid the rate of his regular position.

                                  OR sc a 5~-SBp /O/lo


                          -3-


This Board has reviewed the material presented in the record. We are compelled to conclude that some factual differences exist and that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof in this instance. It has not demonstrated by probative evidence that the Torsion Beam was used by Brutsman during the claim period on enough of a basis to warrant establishment of a position to operate it. The Scope Rule grants to Carrier the right to assign employes across classification lines. Based on the total record of this case, this Board is not persuaded that Carrier was required to establish a Class I Machine Operator position in this instance. The work was not performed on a continuous basis and Claimant's rights were not violated.

                        AWARD


                    The claim is denied.


                      . Dennis, Ch~


    a, pbon S. V. Powers, Employe Member

    Carrier Member


./' -,3- 9/
 Date of Adoption