WM i NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJJSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6388
 SECOND DIVISION. Docket No. 6254-I
 . 2-IC-I-t72
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Liebeirnan when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes : ' , . ; .





The Second Division of the Adjvo tment Beard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act
 as approved JuAe 21, 1934. - .,

involved herein.


The issue in this case relates to the.Vacation Agreement. Article 10 Section (b) of that agreement reads:

        "Where work of vacationing employees is distributed among two or more employees, such employees will be paid their own respective rates. However, not more than the equivalent of twenty-five per cent of the work load of a given vacationing employee can be distributed among fellow employees without the hiring of a relief worker unless a larger distribution of the work load is agreed to by the proper local union

        committee or official."'

Form 1 Award 19o. 6388
 Page 2 Docket No. 6254-I
 2-IC-I-'72

      The second sentence of Article 6 is also relevant:


      "Where a vacation relief worker is not needed in a given instance and -

      if failure to provide a vacation relief worker does not burden these

      employees remaining on the job,, or burden the employee after his return.

      from vacation, the carrier shall not be required to provide such relief

      worker."

      Claimant alleges that the Carrier violated Article 10 Section (b) of the

Vacation Agreement by assigning Claimant and other employees over 33% of the work
 of a vacationing employee. An examination of the. record discloses no evidence in ;
 support of this contention, merely the assertions of the Claimant. Similarly,
 Claimant contends that the seniority provision of the Vacation Agreement was vio
 lated by the Carrier (Article 12, Section (b)), but presents no evidence whatever
 in support of this position. :-

 With respect to Article 6, Claimant was asked to perform some of the work of a vacationing employee but did not do so, stating that such work would constitute a hardship or burden on him. The record does not indicate any other facts with respect to this allegation.

 In order to prevail, Claimant had the.burden of presenting factual evidence in support of his claims with respect to the alleged breaches of the Vacation Agreement by the Carrier; this he has failed to do. This Board has held on a number of occasions that the burden of proof lies with the Claimant in similar situations.(See ~/ Third Division Awards 15218., 14397 15830, 16187 and others). In Award. 16004 we said:

        "Here, we find no probative evidence in the record to support a finding either that more than 25% of the work load of the vacationing foreman was performed by Claimant or that any employee was burdened by Carrier's failure to provide a vacation relief employee for the vacationing foreman. Mere assertions do not satisfy the burden of proof. Therefore, the Claim must be denied."


In this case Claimant has failed to provide proof of his position, so we
 must deny the claim. ., . : -

                        A WA RD


      Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJTJSTMEW BOARD By Order of. Second Division


                        Attest:

          I

          Executive Secretary


                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of October, 1972.