NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Under date of November 21, 1951 the parties to the dispute addressed a joint letter to the Third Division pointing out that before the matter could be submitted to the Vacation Committee that Committee had ceased to exist. In view of those circumstances the parties requested that the Third Division allow the resubmission of the docket for a decision on the merits. The Division agreed to the requested resubmission, and the matter is now before the Division for a decision on the merits.
Water Service Foreman, J. W. Files, in charge of water service work on the Memphis and Missouri Divisions of the Carrier, went on vacation for the period December 16 to December 27, 1946. Claimant F. Wiggins, a Water Service Repairman, on the Memphis Division, makes claim that he was entitled to take over Files' position during said vacation period. It is contended by the Petitioner that O. H. Blankenship, a Water Service Repairman with less seniority than the Claimant was given the responsibility of carrying on Files' work during the vacation period.
Further, it is argued that Claimant would have had no right to the position since prior to March 25, 1948 a Water Service Repairman with seniority rights on the Memphis Division could not bid on a Water Service Foreman's position at Popular Bluff (Files' headquarters).
This record is lacking in proof for the allegation that Blankenship or the Assistant B&B Supervisor carried the responsibilities of Files during the latter's vacation. There are assertions to that effect, but no proof that such duties performed by Blankenship exceeded the allowable percentage in the Vacation Agreement. Articles 6 and 10 (b) of the Vacation Agreement made certain provisions with respect to handling duties of vacationing employes. The record in the instant case does not justify a conclusion that the Carrier exceeded the latitude given in those provisions.
The Claimant has not borne a reasonable burden in showing wherein he is entitled to the relief sought in this proceeding. In this regard Third Division Award 4777, involving these same parties and the same Claimant as the instant case, is especially pertinent. In that case the Board found that Claimant had not made a case in support of the relief sought
In view of the relevant rules and in consideration of the facts stated fn the record, we must find that this claim lacks merit and must be denied.
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, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and