orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6359
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6207
 2-SLSF-CM-'72
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving R. Shapiro when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No:.22, Railway Employes'
 (. Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes;


            2. That accordingly the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company be ordered to compensate the aforementioned Lead Car Inspector for eight hours on each of the dates mentioned above, a total of forty hours at double his pro rata rate plus six per cent (6,0) interest from the

( date the claim was submitted on June 25, 1970 until the date the
            claim is paid.


Findings
        The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and I

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.
                                                                i.


        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


        We have before us a very confusing record.


The Petitioner's submission is replete with references to alleged violation's of the Controlling Agreement on dates unrelated and unconnected with its claim.
                                                                i


        The Carrier, in turn, while challenging the Organization claims that j

inspection work i5 exclusively that of Carmen, proceeds to imply t1at it accepts
 this view and denies that anyone other than a Carman did the inspections.

                                                                i


                                                                J

i'orm 1 Award No. 6365
 Page 2 Docket No. 6207
 2--SLSF-CM-' 72

        The Petitiocer then states that if a Management employee "only visL;ally~,

examined freight cars to see if they needed to be cleaned and only inspected
 loading and bracing of ammunition cars after loaded, then no dispute would exist'".
 t~e are further sure that Petitioner would have no disagreement with the right or
 `·tanagement to check on the 4crk or the Carman, or to check equipment in the sub
 division to ascertain work to be assigned to employees.

 The Claimant alleged that Carrier's General Agent and Assistant Train taster at Pittsburgh, Kansas "inspected empty freight cars for Class A explosive ammunition loading...", on May 7_1, 1970 but offers nothing evidentiary to support this charge. His complaint with reference to an inspection of a freight car loaded with ammunition by the Assistant Train Master on May 25, 1970 falls of its own weight in view of Petitioner's above quoted statement that this is not violative of the Controlling Agreement. Isis allegation with reference to management inspections of freigict cars is supported by a copy of what appears to be an assignment form, which in no way indicates that it evolved from inspections.. it could readily re that tlip instructions to the Carman and cleaner resulted from information ;ecu'-ed from other sources. There is nothing submitted whiclc attempts to support his allegations concerning inspections on June 8 and for June 15, there is again only an assignment sheet which interestingly enought orders the Claimant to irspect and certify as ready for loading, a number of freight cars. Claimant was rcpt on the property on the days in question and therefore could not claim to have seen the alleged infractions. Nothing in the record shows that he secured his info-rmation from anyone who saw the alleged work performed by the Assistant Train Master. Tho ~, entire claim is based upon inferences drawn by the Claimant without: a -Shred of valid objective information to support even the basis for a claim.

 WEB have held that in claims of this type, the burden is upon the ;'etitioner to prove a violation by presentation of probative and substantial evidence. (Awards 5577, 5534, 57:8, 5738, 5891, 5952, 6032 and 6054). This reciuirement was not met by the Petitioner herein.

                          A hi A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ACc,I1JSTi1ENT BOARD

                              By Order of Second Division


Attest:~__,_.
        Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September,, 1972.