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.
The instant claim was filed with the Detroit Division Mechanical Superintendent by the Claimant through the Organization. The claim alleges that the Carrier violated Rule 57 of the Agreement when it blanked a vacationing Carman's position from July 15 to July 26, 1996 and permitted train crews to inspect and air test outbound trains.
The claim was denied on grounds that there was insufficient information provided to the Carrier with respect to train numbers and dates when the alleged infractions were supposed to have taken place. In reviewing the further processing of this claim on property the Board notes that issue of the train numbers and dates when such infractions were to have taken place was never cleared up.
Carrier's rejection of the claim is also based on the argument that there was insufficient work to have called in the Claimant on some days and that on other days involved in the claim no Carman work at all had been done at the point in question.
In Rules cases such as the instant one the burden lies with the Claimant to provide sufficient substantial evidence that an Agreement violation has taken place. A review of the record fails to convince the Board that such burden has been met in the instant case. In accordance with numerous precedent set by the Board in the past mere ". . . assertions (of a violation of a labor Agreement) do not constitute proof" (See Second Division Award 5509). Further, Carrier's arguments of insufficient work available at the location to have called the Claimant on the days in question were insufficiently challenged by the Claimant.
On basis of the full record before it the Board has no alternative but to deny the claim.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.