Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11778
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11590-T
 89-2-88-2-70
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/ A Division of TCU
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rules 25A and 102 of the controlling Agreement. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Carmen Floyd Rogers for July 17, 1986 and Clarence Ham for July 21, 1986 in the amount of twelve (12) hours for each Carman. Train # REEPA leaves Reisor yard, Shreveport, Louisiana, on each Monday and Thursday of each week, this will be a continuous claim each week until violation is corrected.

 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 employes 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.

As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union was advised of the pendency of this dispute and did not file a Submission with the Division.

 A continuous Claim is made by the Organization on behalf of Claimants alleging that Carrier violated Rules 25A and 102 of the Agreement. The Organization claims that inspection and air brake testing of freight cars departing Reisor Yard was performed by a switchman in violation of the Agreement.

 The Carrier denies any violation of the Agreement arguing that Carmen have never previously performed such work at Reisor Yard. It notes that since 1981, trainmen at Reisor have performed air brake tests. The Carrier also denies exclusivity for the Carmen's craft and notes that the majority of cars in the train originated in Shreveport.
 Form 1 Award No. 11778
 Page 2 Docket No. 11590-T
 89-2-88-2-70
 In this case, the record simply does not support the finding of vio-
 lation of Rules 25A and 102 of the Agreement. It is clear that the train in
 dispute departed Shreveport with only "a fill being added at Reisor." The
 Organization does not refute the Carrier's statements in its letter of January
 11, 1988, including the assertion that:

In addition, it is unrebutted that "carmen have never performed any air brake testing or inspection type work at Reisor before."

 In the facts of this case and based upon well accepted criteria for such decisions, we must deny the Claim on the same basis that we have evaluated similar claims (Second Division Awards 11418, 11422, 11425). The Organization has not brought forth evidence to demonstrate that Reisor Yard was a departure yard or terminal in which Carmen were on duty. In fact it was not, and therefore the Claim must be denied (Second Division Awards 11021, 11093, 11601, 11493).






Attest:

        NC_ ~

        ancy J. er- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of October 1989.