On May 2, 1991, eight road locomotive units arrived at Armourdale Yard at Kansas City, Kansas. There is no dispute on the fact that Hostlers disconnected the electrical control cables from the last two units. The Organization filed claim that the work performed was electricians work.
The instant case centers on the issue of whether mechanical forces have by Agreement and practice the right to perform the disputed disconnection of the electrical control cable for the purpose of uncoupling units in the yard. The record shows that the organization maintained the work was protected by Classification of Work Rule 64, Assignment of Work Rule 34 and Qualifications Rule 63. It also argued on property that the Carrier violated practice in its letters dated June 21, 1991, August 29, 1991, and March 7.4, 1992. In its letter of August 29, 1991, the Organization argues that:
A study of the record shows that the Carrier denied that the Rules protected the right of electricians to sole performance of uncoupling or disconnecting diesel units on this property. The Carrier argued that Hostlers were in no violation of the mechanical crafts Agreement when they coupled or uncoupled, connected or disconnected diesel units in the train yard. The Carrier denied any exclusive right or practice thereto by letters dated May 31, 1991, and July 3, 1991. In the Carrier's letter of July 31, 1991, the Carrier stated in pertinent part:
The Carrier did not respond to the Organization's letter dated March 24, 1992, which included the only supportive evidence for this Claim. That letter dated March 24, 1992, included six signatures on five separate letters from electricians supporting the practice on the property. The Board makes note that the organization filed its Notice of Intent on March 30, 1992. Form 1 Award No. 12702
Crucial to any claim of this type is proof through probative evidence that Agreement or practice governs. We have carefully read all Agreement Rules in dispute, including the Hostler's Rules. There exists no expressly stated Rule governing the disputed work on this property. The claim rests on the burden of proof that the practice is as claimed by the Organization. The Board has no knowledge of what occurs on property in its appellate forum except that which it obtains through correspondence of those issues and evidence joined on property. Prior to the letter of March 24, 1992, the Organization's allegations were explicitly rebutted and no evidence had been put forth by the Organization to shift its burden of proof to the Carrier. The case of the Organization fully rests on the weight of the letter and its attached evidence.
This Board is constrained to give the evidence little probative value as it was not fully joined on the property. We conclude that the evidence was submitted momentarily prior to the Notice of Intent so as to preclude a rebuttal or the submission of evidence and argument by the Carrier sufficient to consider it properly before us.
The March 24, 1992, letter with attached evidence of practice responding to the Carrier's denial of October 22, 1991, and coming at nearly the same time as the Notice of Intent is of insufficient weight to sustain the Claim.
It is a firm conclusion of the Board that the Organization has failed to demonstrate Agreement or practice supporting its claim. A review of the record as fully developed and disputed on the property lacks sufficient probative evidence to support an Agreement violation by the Carrier. The Claim must be denied for lack of proof in these instant circumstances where the merits of the issue have not fully been joined.