"There are numerous awards of this Division which hold the burden of establishing a claim is upon the one who asserts it, that is, the burden of establishing facts sufficient to require or permit the allowance of a claim is upon him who seeks the allowance. See .Awards 4011, 2577, 5445."

See also Third Division Awards 7226, 7225, 7200, 7199, 6964, 6885, 6844, 6824, 6748 and 5418.

In the case at band, the Organization has not and cannot establish facts which support its allegation that the working Agreement has been violated. The Organization has not met its burden of proof. The claim, therefore, should be denied.

CONCLUSION

The Pullman. Company has shown in this ex parte submission that requirements for 6 Pullman conductors to operate in service from Halifax, an outlying point under the jurisdiction of the Montreal District, to New York became known in the Montreal District at 10:00 A. M., February 25, 1957, and that in the absence of available Montreal extra conductors, the Montreal District arranged to have the requirements filled with New York and Boston District conductors. The Company has shown that this procedure was in accordance with Question 7 and Answer 7 of Rule 23 and with Rule 38. Further, the Pullman Company has shown that the Organization has presented no theory of the case which finds support in the working rules, its position that Lister and Beach should have been deadheaded to Halifax from New York being contrary to Rules 38 (c) and (e). Finally, the Company has shown that the Organization has not established facts sufficient to permit the allowance of the claim.

The Organization's claim is without merit and should be denied.

All data presented herewith in support of the Company's position have heretofore been submitted in substance to the employes or their representatives and made a part of this dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This controversy concerns the assignment of extra conductors to perform service out of Halifax, Nova Scotia, an outlying point under the jurisdiction of Carrier's Montreal District. The assignments became necessary when an emergency arose requiring six extra conductors for .en-ice on three special trains to be sent from Halifax to New York on February 27, 1957. No extra conductors were then available in the Montreal District and it requested the New York Central District to furnish the necessary men. Claimants, two Montreal District Conductors, were in New York City at the time the assignments wore made, having just completed an extra service trip from Montreal, and were ignored in the selection of extra conductors for the Halifax work.

Petitioner alleges that Carrier violated Rule 38 (a) of the applicable Agreement when it failed to use the Claimants in the assignment. It insists that Claimants were "available" within the meaning of the Rule and that the Montreal District, either directly or through the New York Central Dist-ict, should have designated them for the service in question. On the other

hand, Carrier maintains that it complied with all pertinent provisions of the Agreement in making the assignments.

The assignments complained of arose directly from and as an incident of an emergency situation. This was emphasized in the submissions of both Petitioner and Carrier. Time was of the essence in designating the extra conductors and schedules, including deadheading arrangements, had to be speedily worked out and accommodated. At the time the assignments became necessary, Claimants were not physically within the Montreal District and it was too late to deadhead them back to Montreal in time to meet the emergency in Halifax. We are satisfied that Montreal and not Halifax was their "home station" within the meaning of Rule 38 (e) although the latter city was under the jurisdiction of the Montreal District. It is our conclusion that in this specific factual situation, Claimants were not in the "available" status contemplated by Rule 38 (a) and Carrier can not be held to have violated the Agreement. The claim will 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

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD