PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Form 1

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION

Award No. 13315
Docket No. 13193-T
98-2-96-2-99

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood Railway Carmen, Division of
( Transportation Communications International Union

(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Seaboard
( Coast Line Railroad Company)

"1. Carrier violated the Agreement on May 4, 6, 10, 11, June 8, 13, 14,





2. Carrier shall compensate each claimant listed four (4) hours


T.D. Hadden and J.M. Stewart
W.E. Davis and L. Wilson
W.S. Keith and T.E. Manders
L.V. Datts and T.D. Hadden
T.D. Hadden and J.M. Stewart
T.E. Manders and W.S. Keith
A. Price and D.G. Phillip
M.H. Collins and R.H. Reeves
L. Wilson and E.L. Miller
T.D. Hadden and L.V. Datts
W.E. Davis and D.G. Phillip
A. Price and W.S. Keith
J.M. Stewart and L.V. Datts

May 4, 1995 May 6, 1995 May 10, 1995 May 11, 1995 June 8, 1995

June 13,1995 .tune 14, 1995 June 17, 1995 June 19, 1995 June 22, 1995 June 23, 1995 .Tune 27, 1995 .June 28. 1995

Form 1 Award No. 13315
Page 2 Docket No. 13193-T
98-2-96-2-99

FINDINGS:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:


The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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, but it chose not to file a Submission with the Board.


In this case, the Organization contends that the Carrier violated the Parties' Agreement (Rules 15(a), 26(a), 28(a) and 100) as well as FRA Rules when it failed to call Carmen to perform initial terminal brake tests on 13 dates during the period from May 4 through June 28, 1995 at the Carrier's Savannah, Georgia, facility. The Organization contends that the brake tests were mechanical inspections reserved to the Carmen craft.


Before addressing the claim, the Board agrees with the Organization that certain arguments and positions have been advanced by the Carrier which were not joined on the property. Accordingly, these were not considered by the Board in its deliberations.,


With respect to the merits, we find that the Organization, on the property, failed to meet its burden of proof. It is well settled that train crews may perform brake tests as long as they do not perform mechanical inspection work at a departure yard where Carmen are on duty.



Form 1 Award No. 13315
Page 3 Docket No. 13193-T
98-2-96-2-99







This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above. hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      By Order of Second Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of August 1998.