Form 1
NATIONAL RAIIAt:OAD
ADJUSTIMIT BOARD Award ido.8122
SEC01ID DIVISION Docket No.
7708
2-r,tP-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award
was
rendered.
System Federation No. 2,
Railway
Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Article V of
the Agreement of September
25,
19611- when they used General Car
Foreman, T:1r. F. Hickerson, to make brake inspection on train T,Io.
807,
June
23, 19176,
while this train was in the Settegast Train
Yard, Houston, Texas.
(2) That the Mi^souri Paci fc Railroad Comr=pry be ordered to compenEate
Carman A. 2atopek in the 4zIount of four
(°4)
hours at the pro rata
rate account of this violation.
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 em^loyes involved - n this
dispute are respectively carrier and e:iploye within the meaning of the
Railway Labor "pct as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The dispute involves an allegation by the Clni:-.ants that Carrier violated
Article V of the September
25, 1964
Agreement when ~~eneral Car Foreman
Hickerson was used to make an air brake inspection on train no.
807
on
June
23, 1976.
It is undisputed that carmen performed the necessary preparation and
inspection work on train no.
807
prior to its departing Setteast Train --fwrd.
The train, however, developed brake trouble at Pierce Siding which Claimants
allege to be z~ithin S4ttegast Train Yard.
Carrier defends the claim on the basis that train no.
807
was not in the
departure yard T,,rhen the trouble develotr:d and that C~eneral Car Foreman
Hickerson only instructed the train craw in an effort to determine the trouble.
Evidence submitted by the Claimants znas derived by listening in on radio
conversation.
Form 1 Award No. 8122
Page 2 Docket No.
7708
2-ILL'-CM-'
79
This Board has historically held that the moving party must support its
claim with substantial evidence. We find that the Claimants have failed to
submit sufficient evidence that any work was performed in violation of
Article V of the September 25,
1904
Agreement. The claim will be dismissed.
The decision herein was reached without consideration of Carrier's
Exhibits A and B which were not made a part of the record on the property and
to which the Employes rightfully objected.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RA INROAD ADJUST= BOARD
By Order oz" Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
F'osemarie hrascil - ALminiutrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September, 1979.