(Brotherhood of Railway Company Division of TCIU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
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.
The facts of the case are that on March 29, 2005, Supervisor Carves along with a Carman out of Lawrence, MA, went to Merri7ls Terminal in Portland, ME, where re-rating duties were performed, while the Claimants worked at their home location.
It is the Organization's position that the Carrier violated Rules 2.1, 2.1(m) and 31.5 when it improperly used a Carman who was outside of his territory and a Supervisor to do covered Carman work of re-railing at Merrills Terminal rather than using the Claimants who were ordered to work in the yard instead of sending them out to protect their territory. It also argues in its Submission before the Board that the Carrier offered a compromise offer of two hours overtime pay because it recognized that a Supervisor performed Carman's work which was declined because it failed to recognize that a Carman was also working out of his territory.
It is the position of the Carrier that a fully qualified Carman was used to rerail the car in dispute on March 29, 2005, in accordance with the Rules of the Agreement. It further argues that Supervisor Carves was supervising the Carman and provided customary assistance to him which is the normal practice on the property. Additionally, it states that if there was any validity to the Organization's claim which there is not, there is no basis for claiming two hours pay on behalf of two Claimants because it only took one Carman to perform the work. Lastly, it argues there are no "territories" involved in this dispute because the only defined territories that are set forth in the Agreement, pertain to ground crews for wreck service (See Rule 30 Wreck Crew and Side Letter # 1 of March 1, 2003) which do not pertain to the re-railing of cars involved in the instant dispute. Simply stated Form 1 Award No. 13951
the Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the Agreement.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record and finds it devoid of any facts which support the Organization's arguments, as it provided no evidentiary support such as employee statements as to what work the Supervisor allegedly did. In addition there are no written statements or letters on the property confirming the de-novo allegation in its Submission that the Carrier recognized the improper usage of a Supervisor. Therefore, even though the work in issue may have been outside the scope of managerial authority we must deny the instant claim because of a lack of proof.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.