PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Pennsylvania Railroad Company that:



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On or about November 1, 1953, Mr. W. D. Best was assigned to a position of Leading Maintainer with an assigned territory extending from Mile Post 83.4 to Mile Post 192. This territory covers five (5) signal maintenance sections identified as 1-L, 2-L, 3-L, 4-L, and 5-L. Leading Maintainer Best has jurisdiction over the Maintainers assigned to those sections.


Prior to June 9, 1958, Mr. R. L. Hinkle was assigned to section 4-L. Under date of April 17, 1958, Mr. L. W. Hayhurst, Supervisor C & S, issued the 1958 vacation schedule, which indicated that Mr. R. L. Bridenthal was designated to relieve Mr. Hinkle while the latter was on his vacation from June 9 to 20, 1958, inclusive. However, the Carrier did not provide a vacation relief worker for section 4-L while Mr. Hinkle was on vacation. Instead, it instructed Leading Maintainer Best to protect the territory, and he subsequently spent more than 25% of his time working alone and performing work that would have been performed by the regular Maintainer or by the vacation relief employe.


During the week of June 9 through 13, 1958, Mr. W. L. Baker was the senior furloughed employe so, under date of June 21, 1958, Mr. W. D. Beat,












Therefore, so far as Carrier .is able to anticipate the basis of the claims, the questions to be determined by this Board are whether the Carrier violated the provisions of Article 10 (b) of the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, when it used the Lead Maintainer to perform certain items of inspection work normally performed by the Maintainer on Section 4-L, while the regular Maintainer was observing his vacation, and whether the Claimant is entitled to the compensation which he claims.




OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that Carrier assigned more than 25"/ of the work load of the vacationing Maintainer to the Leading Maintainer in violation of Article 10 (b) of the Vacation Agreement.


Reading Article 10(b), with benefit of Referee Morse's interpretation of that Article, we conclude that for the Organization to prevail it had the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence of probative value that: (1) more than 25% of the work load in excess of that normally assumed by the Leading Maintainer in the vacationing Maintainer's section had been assumed by the Leading Maintainer; or, (2) a "burden" had been placed on the Leading Maintainer in the performance of work normally performed


14473 8

by the vacationing Maintainer; or, (3) a "burden" was placed on the vacationing Maintainer on his resumption of duty because of work remaining to be performed. Organization failed to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to any one of the three. We will dismiss the Claim.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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











Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of May 1966.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U. S. A.
14473 9