upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take such action.

CONCLUSION

The Carrier has shown that Clerk Rancourt properly was used to perform the work here in dispute and that the Claimant is not entitled, under the Agreement, to the compensation which he claims.

It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that the claim is not supported by the applicable Agreement and should be denied.

The Carrier demands strict proof by competent evidence of all facts relied upon by the Employes, with the right to test the same by cross-examination, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter, and the establishment of a proper record of all of the same.

All data contained herein have been presented to the employe involved or to his duly authorized representative.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF THE BOARD: This case is fraught with conflicting assertions and contentions, unsupported allegations and inadmissible charges and claims.

Simply and tersely stated the only question to be resolved is as follows:

Was the Claimant or Mr. M. H. Rancourt entitled to the extra clerical assignment on August 12, 1955, under prevailing rules?

The Carrier contends that it properly called Clerk Rancourt because he was a regularly assigned clerk in the "400" Yard from 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. and had made written application for extra work. The organization claims that Rancourt was junior in seniority to the Claimant and that the Claimant had made written application for extra work.

Let us now turn to the record for facts that will confirm or dissaffirm this claim.

The pertinent agreed upon facts are as follows:

1. That Claimant's seniority date is March 10, 1942, and that M. H. Rancourt's seniority date is May 12, 1947;

2. That the Claimant had been called for extra work assignments both before and after August 12, 1955;

3. That the Claimant had been called at his Trailer Park Home by the Carrier's Crew Callers both before and after August 12, 1955;

4. That Crew Dispatcher W. A Shumway made no effort to call anyone but Clerk Rancourt because he (Shumway) was busy and Clerk Rancourt was easy to reach;

5. That there were no extra clerks available; that the regular employe

was not available; and the Carrier was required to use a regularly assigned clerk to fill the assignment. (Emphasis supplied.)

The pertinent disputed points are as follows:

1. Whether or not the Claimant had made written application for extra assignment work in keeping with the following provisions of Extra List No. 6:

Paragraph 5: "Where work is required by management and no qualified employes, on this extra list are available, as provided in Rule 4-A-1 (i), qualified available regular employes whose positions are protected by this list, and who have made written application for extra work, will be given such work."

Paragraph 7: "When no extra employes, who have worked less than forty (40) hours in the work week are available, extra work that is not part of an assignment shall be performed by the regular employe, if available, as provided in Rule 4-A-1 (i), otherwise by the senior qualified available regularly assigned employe who has made written application for such work, subject to the provisions of Rules 2 _A-1, 4-A-2 and 4-A-6."

2. Whether or not Clerk Rancourt had made written application for extra work assignment in keeping with the requirements of Rule No. 6, supra.

Although the agreed upon facts, supra, weigh heavily in favor of the Organization, the Board will also give substantial weight and credence to the disputed points, supra.

The Carrier alleged that the Claimant made no written application for extra work, whereas the Organization alleges that the Claimant made both written and oral applications for extra work. As neither party offered any admissible supporting evidence for its allegation, no credence can be given to their respective positions.

The Carrier also alleged that Clerk Rancourt had made written application for extra work, but the Carrier failed to offer any supportive evidence. Such evidence, as Rancourt's written application for extra work, if available, would be under the complete dominion and control of the Carrier. Therefore, if such evidence existed, it was incumbent on the Carrier to produce it. The Carrier's failure to do so, indicates that its allegation was lacking in merit and substance.

Accordingly, we must turn to the Seniority Provision (Rule No. 3) of the Labor Agreement and there we find undeniable support for the Organization's claim.

Therefore, the Carrier must pay the Claimant eight hours of straight time pay at his prevailing rate.

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 violated the Agreement.

AWARD