The dispute in this case concerns an assignment made on May 21,1999 when two Machinists were instructed to go to the Paint Shop to remove masking tape and paper used in the painting process, rather than assigning that work to Carmen.
The Organization alleges that it took the Machinists four hours each to complete the assignment. Relying upon time records, the Carrier asserts that the assigned work included switching the locomotive - which is not Carmen's work - and the work took approximately two hours for each employee to perform. Further, according to the Carrier the unmasking work performed by the Machinists was permissible incidental work. The Organization responds that the work performed by the Machinists did not include switching.
Under their Rule 34, Machinists can perform " . . . any and all other services associated with the repair and maintenance of machines and locomotives and incidental to a clean, safe, and operational facility . . . limited to no more than 4 hours in the work day." Relying upon pay records, the Carrier asserts that the unmasking work performed by the Machinists was incidental work under that Rule. The Organization asserts that it was not.
The burden in this case is on the Organization to demonstrate a violation of the Carmen's Agreement. Review of the record as a whole does not show that the Organization has factually refuted the Carrier's assertion that the work performed by the Machinists was incidental. Aside from unsupported assertions, the Organization has not demonstrated facts to show how much work was performed by the Machinists and that such work was not incidental. Without such a factual showing, we cannot sustain this claim.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.