This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
It is the Organization's position that the Carrier violated Rules 2.1 and 12.2 on September 29, 2006, when it ordered the Claimant to abandon his position at Ayer, 1VIA, to work for a non-union company (GMX) unloading trailers. According to it the Claimant's position was subsequently backfilled by Carman Jarret. Based upon those facts it argues the Claim should be sustained.
It is the position of the Carrier that it did not violate the Agreement. It argues that Claimant was not ordered off his position and that he reported for duty at the proper time and performed work within the scope of his duties consistent with Rule 2 of the Agreement and there was no backfilling of Claimant's position. Therefore, it argues that the Organization has not met its burden of proof that a violation of the Agreement occurred and it requests that the claim be denied.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record and finds that the parties' positions are totally contradictory regarding what transpired on September 29, 2006. The Organization states that Claimant was forced off his position and it was backfilled by Carman Jarret whereas the Carrier states Claimant was not forced off his assignment and Jarret did not backfili Claimant's position. The instant case has an irreconcilable dispute in facts and is devoid of any evidentiary support such as statements from Claimant or Carman Jarret explaining what happened on September 29th. Therefore, the Board offers no opinion on whether or not the allegations of the claim violated the Agreement as it is impossible to determine whether or not Claimant was required to abandon his position to work another job. Instead the Board finds and holds that we must deny the instant claim for lack of proof.