ously is not pertinent to this dispute which is concerned with the right of the Company to utilize the services of a regular conductor when an emergency exists.

An examination of the record in this dispute relates directly to the conclusion that the Organization has neither rule support from the controlling Agreement, nor support from the Awards of the Third Division. Undoubtedly, the burden is upon the Organization in a claim of this kind. Numerous awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have so held. A cornerstone award on this principle is Third Division Award 7362 (Larkin), as follows:

"The burden of establishing facts sufficient to require the allowance of a claim (and proper language in the agreement covering the situations), is upon those who seek the allowances . . . .

Another such award is Third Division Award 9633 (Johnson), wherein it is stated as follows:

"The burden of proving the claim admittedly rests upon the Claimants. Upon the record we must conclude that no violation of the Agreement has been shown."

CONCLUSION

In this submission, the Company has shown that there is no rule in the Agreement that provides the manner in which a regular conductor shall be used to perform emergency work. Also, the Company has shown that Rule 38 relates to the operation of extra conductors with the exception that Rule 38 (d) permits Management to use a regular conductor out of the regular order of his assignment in a special service movement requested by the President of the United States, a condition not found in this dispute. Further, the Company has shown that Rule 36 permits the use of a regularly assigned conductor in an emergency, but does not set forth any formula as to the manner in which such regular conductors shall be used. Finally, the Company has shown that Rules 25, 6, 21, 7, 22 and Question and Answer to Rule 18 have not been violated by the Company.

Inasmuch as it has been shown that no rule of the Agreement has been violated in the manner in which the relief in Line 6854 was handled in September, 1963, the Company submits that the claim in behalf of Conductor Kesler is without merit, and it should be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner's theory is that Carrier violated Rule 38 of the Agreement when it failed to assign the 'Claimant, a regular conductor, to fill a relief assignment on Southern Trains 13 and 16 between Raleigh and Greensboro.

At the time in question there were three relief assignments to be filled. Two were filled by extra conductors in accordance with Rule 38(c). Carrier used Saxon, a regularly assigned conductor, on the third.

It is undisputed that no extra conductor was available for the third assignment and that, under the circumstances, Carrier was free under Rule 36 to assign a regular conductor to the relief work. It is equally clear that had an extra conductor been available, the normal procedure under Rule 38(a) and (c) would have been for the Norfolk Agency to assign an extra conduc-

for to the vacancy and he would report for the deadhead trip from Norfolk to Raleigh on the evening of September 19 so that he could perform the service from Raleigh to Greensboro on September 20 and thereafter between those two points for the balance of the 10 day relief period.

Petitioner contends that that same procedure, prescribed by Rule 38(a) and (c), should have been followed in the instant case. It points out that Claimant, a regular conductor, was available on September 19 in Norfolk and should have been called upon for the relief work. Carrier maintains that Saxon, regularly assigned to the trains involved in this dispute, had completed his 20 round trips, was in Raleigh and was simply used for one more trip on September 20 from Raleigh to Greensboro and then relieved by an extra conductor for the balance of the 10 days' relief assignment.

The Board is satisfied from its examination of the Agreement that, under the circumstances of the present case, no rule covers the sign-out procedure and priority of assignments for regular conductors. Rule 38 is emphasized by Petitioner, but clearly applies only to extra conductors; both the title of that Rule, "Operation of Extra Conductors", and the language that appears in its sub-paragraphs dispel any doubt regarding that interpretation. Regular Conductors are not transformed into extra conductors when used in relief assignments.

Rule 25 is a seniority rule, and is not relevant, since the disputed service was performed by Norfolk District conductors. Neither that rule nor any other provision of the Agreement prescribes which regularly assigned Conductor within the same seniority district must be assigned to perform relief work in an emergency. In view of that fact, and since this Board lacks authority to supplement or fill in gaps in an agreement, the claim must be denied.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved i0. 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