_*xaam iad sbap (9) XTs 'Cap aad sjnoq (VZ) jno3-dquamq 'TTeo uo uT2wai oq pa.zinbaz

qou aJe squewieTD ayq se awTq yons TTqun

snonutquoo (S-0 ;Taq-auO pup awTq 3o aqez qTeuad aqq qe 'qquow qopa sjnoq (£'£V£) aazqq

quTod aaiqq dqjo; paipunq as=qq TauoTqippa up

S-4UEw72TD aqq dad oq pazapio aq '3aij.T2o se oq

pa=zaJas zaq;eUiazau 'RuedwoD UOiqeqjodsuaas

U.Taqsam 14-4-TON PUB obaoiqo aqq qeqs '6

The November 13, 1991 document prompted a claim since it implied to the employees that the traveling mechanics are expected to remain on call six days a week for 24 hours a day (since pagers had been provided), and the Carrier was thus demanding that the monthly rated employees remain on call without the benefit of additional compensation to which the claimants are entitled, i.e., 576 hours per month.

On February 7, 1992, the November 13, 1991 letter was cancelled in its entirety and the suburban division policy was stated to be:

1. When overtime emergency work is necessary, the

Carrier expects a TM-E to respond.

2. TM-Es are required to be available during

their normal work hours on their sixth day of

the week.

3. Any TM-E who is not available for call on the

sixth day will be considered to have laid off

on his own account and will have eight hours

pay deducted during that month, per Rule 71.

Once again, it was stated that Management did not expect the policies to either increase or decrease the number of hours worked by any employee.

On Februjary 18, 1992, the Carrier responded to the claim and denied that the November 13, 1991 correspondence in any way changed the on-call hours of any of the electricians on the division but, merely emphasized that time worked in excess of eight hours is covered by the monthly rate, nor had any claimants suffered any loss due to the action. The document also referred to the February 7, 1992 cancellation of the prior letter which "...effectively ends the claim at that time."

The Organization responded and disagreed with the conclusions of the Carrier concerning compensation obligations and demanded that claimants be compensated for the period between November 13, 1991 and February 7, 1992, since the Carrier improperly attempted to change the working rules and conditions of the monthly rated employees. The Organization did not agree that the employees remain on-call/stand-by (24 hours per day, six days per week), and the Rule was not written "...with the view that employees would be issued pagers in order that the Carrier be able to contact these employees no matter where they may be."

In the presentation to this Board, both parties have made various assertions and allegations concerning time limit problems, reliance upon documents not properly handed on the property, etc. As a result, we have confined our consideration solely to these matter as it was raised and discussed on the property.

Upon our reivew of the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the documents dealing with the employees' duties contain a significant alteration from the concepts of their duty prior to the issuance of the documentation. This, to some extent, seems to be somewhat borne out by the fact that during the period of almost three months, after November 13, 1991, there has not been a showing of any significant alteration in duty requirements or problems with compensation.

The employees bear the burden of proof in this type of a dispute, and we do not find that the Organization has presented sufficient evidence for us to conclude that it has established the basis for its claim by a sufficient preponderance of the evidence.

A W A R D