" * * * . Furthermore, the claim must fail for lack of proof. Mere assertions and conclusions are not sufficient to substantiate a claim."

Third Division Award 8838, Referee Donald F. McMahon:

" * * * It has consistently been held by this Division that the burden of proof is upon the claimant and the Organization to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Carrier has violated the agreement."

Third Division Award 8768, Referee Donald F. McMahon:

"The Board is of the opinion that from a review of the record before us, the facts submitted are not sufficient to support a sustaining Award." '

Third Division Award 8430, Referee Carroll R. Daugherty:

"From a study of the whole record the Board is forced to conclude that the Employes have failed to support their contention. That is, the Carriers decision not to assign Claimant to the new position is not found to have had such an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable basis as to have constituted a clear abuse of managerial discretion and as to justify this Board now to substitute its own judgment for that of the Carrier. * * * " (Emphasis ours.)

Also see other awards, including Third Division Awards Nos. 8172, 7964, 7908, 7861, 7584, 7226, 7200, 7199, 6964, 6885, 6844, 6824, 6748, 6402, 6379, 6378, 6225, 5941, 2676, and others. Also see Second Division Awards Nos. 2938, 2580, 2569, 2545, 2544, 2042, 1996, and others-all of which clearly state that the burden is on the claimant party to prove an alleged violation of the agreement. To date, the Employes have produced no evidence of any violation.

In view of all the facts and circumstances shown by the carrier in this Ex Parte Submission, carrier respectfully requests the Board to dismiss this illegal, amended, improperly handled claim; or if it is considered on its socalled merits, to deny the claim in its entirety.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

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

By bulletin, dated at Columbus, Georgia, December 8, 1960, and addressed to "All concerned-Mechanical Department-Cedarton," the Carrier stated that, "Account continued decline in business and the necessity for affecting economies wherever possible, effective with the close of work day, Wednesday, December 14, 1960, the following positions will be abolished:" This statement is followed with 4 named Machinists, 3 Carmen, 1 Probationary

Carman, 1 Electrician Helper, and 4 Laborers. The bulletin concluded with the statement, "Those employes affected may exercise their seniority over junior employes on positions where they are qualified and seniority will permit," and was signed by the Carrier's Master Mechanic.

The claim before us is set forth above, and it is to be specifically noted that Carman R. A. Smith named therein was not among the employes listed on said bulletin.

Thereafter, on December 10, 1960, the Secretary-Treasurer of System Federation No. 26 (who was, in fact, also the General Chairman of the International Association of Machinists) undertook to initiate a blanket claim on the property on behalf of the employes whose names appeared in the bulletin of December 8, on the ground that said Bulletin did not conform with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Agreement, because it did not list or enumerate the positions to be abolished. The Carrier responded (on December 16) that it did not recognize the right of the Secretary-Treasurer of System Federation 26 and General Chairman of the Machinists organization to represent any of the crafts mentioned in the bulletin of December 8, other than machinists. Subsequently, on January 10, 1961, the President and Secretary of System Federation 26, and the General Chairman of the Electricians, Boilermakers and Blacksmiths, Laborers, Carmen, Machinists, and Sheet Metal Workers organizations requested the Carrier in writing to entertain a claim on behalf of the 13 employes named in the bulletin. It is to be noted that no boilermakers and blacksmiths and no sheet metal workers were affected by said bulletin; also that the name of the Claimant R. A. Smith was never mentioned on the property prior to April 4, 1961, when the aforesaid officers of System Federation 26 and said General Chairmen asked the Carrier by letter that Smith and one H. J. Logan be recognized as claimants.

Out of the complexity of facts briefly summarized above, a number of serious procedural problems arise. Among these we direct particular attention to the following: (1) The right of the Secretary-Treasurer or of the President and Secretary-Treasurer of System Federation 26 to initiate or prosecute claims on behalf of Laborers, Electrical Workers, Carmen, Probationary Carmen, and Machinists, even though it was subsequently disclosed that said Secretary-Treasurer was also the General Chairman of the Machinists organization; (2) The right of the General Chairman of Sheet Metal Workers and the General Chairman of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths to join in the prosecution of said claim on the property; (3) The right of the Employes to amend the claim so as to include the claimant Smith more than 60 days after the claim had been asserted and first handled with the Carrier's proper officer on the property; and the effect of the belated effort to further amend the claim on April 4, 1961, so as to include H. J. Logan, even though his name had appeared on the bulletin of December 8, 1960, and the organizations had contended that such fact was sufficient to identify the claimants involved.

The theory of the Railway Labor Act is that disputes arising out of the contractual rights and obligations of railroad carriers and their employes shall be asserted and progressed by the parties concerned or their duly authorized representatives; that the issues involved in such disputes shall be clearly drawn and defined; that all claims be timely asserted and handled, and that an orderly and good-faith effort shall be made to resolve such disputes on the property, before the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board may be invoked. To this it must be added that when such disputes reach this Board the burden rests on the person or parties that

charge that their rights have been violated to establish the same by a fair preponderance of the proof.

For this Board to undertake to consider this claim on its merits would constitute a precedent for abandoning many procedural rules that have been developed through the years for the orderly discharge of its responsibilities.

AWARD