3. The Carrier has shown that the position of Water Service Repairman clearly comes within the SCOPE RULE of the effective agreement between the parties.

4. A clear outline of the duties and responsibilities attaching to the position of Water Service Repairman is contained in the "Rules and Regulations for the Maintenance of Way and Structures", effective September 1, 1941, several years prior to the initial date of this complaint.

b. Mr. Wiggins performed no duties not contemplated as attachinb to the position of Water Service Repairman, the duties and responsibilities attaching equally to other Water Service Repairmen on the Memphis Division.

6. The sole purpose of this claim is to force the Carrier to establish the position of Assistant Water Service Foreman on the Memphis Division.

7. This board does not have jurisdiction to write agreements, nor to establish positions; only to interpret the terms and provisions of existing agreements and to adjust disputes arising between the parties thereto.

Carrier reiterates that there are no rules of the agreement between the parties to this dispute which the or g anization can properly rely on in support of the complaint and claim in this docket and the arguments advanced by the organization in support of this claim have no merit. The Carrier has violated none of the rules or provisions of the agreement and, therefore, the claim should be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: In its Scope Rule the effective Agreement includes "Water Service Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Repairmen, Helpers, Laborers and Pumpers." On Carrier's property one foreman, Mr. Files, had jurisdiction over both the Missouri and Memphis Divisions. His headquarters were at Poplar Bluff, Missouri. At the time of filing this claim, there were stationed on the Memphis Division at Wynne, Arkansas, two repairmen and one Water Service laborer, and at Lexa, Arkansas, a third repairman; but no assistant foreman was assigned to the Memphis Division. This claim is based on the contention of one of the repairmen stationed at Wynne that in fact he performed the duties and should be compensated at the rate of assistant foreman from date of claim. August 10, 1946 until September 1, 1947. when Carrier divided the territory and assigned each repairman to his separate area.

As basis for the claim, Employes state in substance: That the foreman visited them on an average of about three or four days per month; that Claimant was by the foreman given "the responsibility of looking after the work at Wynne and over that entire Memphis Division"; that he received his instructions from the foreman and relayed them to the other employes; that the foreman's headquarters were 150 miles from Wynne, therefore supervision by him was not practicable; and that Claimant supervised the activities of the other Water Service repairmen and the laborer who worked out of Wynne.

Carrier asserts that there is no showing as to the duties of assistant foreman. In the absence of such showing, we must conclude that the duties of that position are, as the name presumes, to assist the foreman in the p"rformance of his duties, including direction of work and supervision of n n, and that is the substance of the instant claim.

The duties of a repairman from the General Rules of the Carrier include the following:

"WATER SERVICE REPAIRMEN

"452. Duties.-They shall report to and receive instructions from the Water Service Foreman unless otherwise directed. They shall be

responsible for the proper maintenance of all facilities assigned to them. They must thoroughly familiarize themselves with the type, manner of operation, and care of these facilities, and the location of all pipe and sewer lines on their territories.

They must keep the Water Service Foreman advised of their whereabouts when away from headquarters.

453. Inspections and Repairs.-They must regularly inspect all facilities in their charge as frequently as necessary to insure dependable operation. They shall at the same time make all needed repairs that cannot be made by Pumper or plant operator.

They must report to their Foreman, or man in charge, any neglect or misunderstanding of instructions on the part of pumpers or plant operators, and all other unsatisfactory conditions found; what they did to correct these unsatisfactory conditions; and what, if any additional corrective measures are necessary to complete, or to prevent recurrence.

454. Water and Oil Columns.-They shall maintain water and fuel oil columns and keep them properly adjusted. They shall keep column pit drains or drainage devices in serviceable condition.

455. Care of Station, Office, and Other Building Facilities.-They must frequently inspect plumbing and heating systems in buildings on their territory and make necessary repairs; see that janitors or other assigned employes are properly instructed in the operation and upkeep of heating plants, in the use of disinfectants, and in the cleaning of toilets."

The burden of proof rests on Claimant. The naming of the position in the Rule does not make mandatory its being established except where it is required or its duties are actually performed. The statement of conclusion creates no presumption of inability to supervise, and evidence, alone, that Claimant performed an assistant's work on a single occasion is not sufficient to support a claim for the rate of that position for more than a year's time, as here sought.

The claim rests almost entirely on correspondence consisting of nine letters, between the foreman and employes, or by employes among each other. The Carrier asks that this evidence be stricken on the ground that it was never discussed in conference or through correspondence on the property and that Carrier had no knowledge of its existence, but we find it unnecessary to rule on that motion. We shall not here attemt to analyze these letters. In view of the requirement that repairmen "be responsible for the proper maintenance of all facilities assigned to them" and that they must report to the foreman any neglect or misunderstanding of instructions on the part of pumpers, we think there were no substantial duties required of Claimant not implicit therein. If so, such duties extended at most over a few days only and would not be a basis for the present claim for more than a year's pay. The unexplained fact that another employe addressed Claimant as "Chief Water Service Inspector", carries no implication or presumption of foreman's work. Accordingly, we must find that the proof submitted does not satisfy the burden of proof resting on Claimant.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1984;

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD