Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7'053
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6920
 2-SAT&SF-EW-'76
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 97, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:







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.

The Claimants, Messrs. Quaney and Christiansen, are employed as Welder Maintainers (formerly called Diesel Generator Operator Mechanics--DGOMs) at the Carrier's Centralized Welding Plant in Amarillo, Texas. The Organization contends that the Carrier entered into an Agreement with the Claimants to provide them with living quarters, utilities and parking facilities or a subsistence allowance in lieu thereof, and that the Carrier's refusal to continue such to the Claimants beyond 30 days after their movement to Amarillo, Texas, is a violation of this Agreement.
 Form 1 Agar°d No. 7053
 Page 2 Docket No. 6920

      The IBEW and the Carrier are parties to the so-called "Shop Crafts'

Agreement" effective August 1, 1945, and reprinted January, 1957, including revisions. The Organization has not cited any rule or provision of the Shop Crafts' Agreement that the Carrier has violated, nor can we find any provi sion or rule in this Agreement of the parties that can support a mandatory subsistence allowance for the Claimant Welder Maintainers at Amarillo. Nor has the Organization submitted any letter Agreement between itself or the Claimants and the Carrier which ~ would require the Carrier to pay a subsis tence allowance to the Claimants at Amarillo. This Board has searched the Agreements of July 7, 1955 and July 13, 1960 between the Carrier and the IBEW and rAM and can find no Agreement support for the Claimant Welder Ma inta iners' cla im for a subsistence allowance at Amarillo.

 The Organization contends that the Agreement it relies on is the verbal, but none the less binding Agreement between the Carrier and the Claimants by which one of the conditions of employment of a Diesel Generator Mechanic (now Welder Maintainer) was that the Carrier furnish living quarters and utilities or a living allowance. The Organization contends further that the Claimants consummated 'the Agreement by accepting the position of DGOM; and that the Carrier did not have the legal right to unilaterally abrogate this Agreement (Employer' Submission p. 6; Employer' Rebuttal p. 3). The Organization submits evidence of this Agreement in Employes' Exhibits T-1, T-2 and T-3, written statements from h. Christiansen, N. J. Scribner and F. Rosette. In direct contradiction to the Organization's view is Carrier's Exhibit "P" pages 3 and 4, statements by B. G. Hanke and R. A. Smith. A further contrary view is fcund in Carrier's Exhibit 'rQ", p. 3, in the statement of W. A. Irwin of the IAM. it is settled beyond question by a great number of awards of this Board that this Board does not resolve issues of credibility. It is also settled beyond question that in matters such as the instant case, the Organization has the burden of proving its case to the Board. From the entirety of the record before us we cannot resolve the conflict in evidence in this case. Because the burden of proof is on the Organizltion, we must find against the Organization.

 We are cognizant that the organization contends that a further element of proof that there was such a verbal agreement is the fact that the Carrier complied with the conditions of the Agreement for a number of years in paying the subsistence allowance to Claimant Quaney for seven years and Claimant Christiansen for over five years (Employer' Submission, p. 11). The Carrier submits, through the above-mentioned statements of Messrs. Hanke, Smith and Irwin, that payment was made not in furtherance of any alleged verbal agreement, but in accordance with a rationale pertaining to the transient nature of the welding plants before the move to the new permanent welding facility at Amarillo. We quote, in part, from the statements:

          ". . . Mr. Smith did not ever tell me that the coaches or the monthly expenses would be a'permanent arrangement. I also understood that the coaches and, or the living expenses

Form 1 Award No. 7053
 Page 3 Docket No. 6920
 2-AT&SF-EW-' 76
 "were not the results of any agreement for the machinist,
 but that it was rather an accommodation by the company,
 because of the welding plants being transit. At the time
 I hired out on the plant, there was fifty cents an hour
 difference in pay between the shop and the welding plant
 pay and that was the only agreement that I was made to
 understand was of a permanent nature.
 B. G. Ha nke"
 Carrier's Exhibit "P"
 Page 3 of 4

          ". . . Mr. Cunningham is incorrect or is being misled when he states that furnishing living cars or expenses were part of the compensation of any position at the welding plants, and no one was promised this at anytime.


          The welding plants were a maintenance-of-way facility and the maintenance of way employes of this system gang were furnished outfit cars, by agreement, since the gang had no permanent headquarters. When the welding plants were permanently headquartered in Amarillo in December of 1973, the Maintenance of Way agreement no longer required the furnishing of outfit cars, or living quarters.


          The furnishing of outfit cars to the-Diesel Generator Operator Mechanics of the Machinist and Electrician's Craft was only a matter of equity as they also had no permanent headquarters, and were transferring over the system with this maintenance of way gang.


                              R. A. Smith"


                                    Carrier's Exhibit "P"

                                    Page 4 of 4


          ". . .Due to the unique circumstances of the Carrier's operation of its rail welding facilities account it being a portable one moved from one location to another on its System, the Carrier unilaterally instituted payment of such

Form 1 Award No. 7053
 Page 4 Docket No. 6920
 2-AT&SF-EW-' 76
 "living quarters allowance; such being terminated when the
 transient nature of such operations ceased in 1973 upon
 establishment of a permanent type shop operation at Amarillo,
 Texas . .
 William A. Irwin"
 Carrier's Exhibit "Q"
 Page 3 of 3

 The above quoted writings submitted by the Carrier give views concerning why payments were made to the Claimants and why they were stopped. We find that the fact that payments were made for this long period of time cannot be construed as resolving the issue of credibility. And) we thus must deny the claim.

                        A W A R D


      Dented.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


    Byte .~E'~'Tt...~C-'t,ic.-GG~.~..-2/ Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


    Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th dray of Pay, 1976.