NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On Sunday, March 7, 1965, Mr. A. O. Biediger, Road Foreman of Engines, assigned to Carrier's territory which includes Englewood Yard, Houston, and Hearne, was riding on Train 258, a freight train en route from Hearne, the away-from-home terminal, and called the Bowl Tower, which is the yardmasters control tower from which the yardmaster supervises the Gravity Yard movements in Englewood Yard, Houston, Texas, on radio, stating Train 258 was located at MP 17 and inquiring as to the time First 257 and a train to handle ribbon rail from Englewood to Hearne was called to depart. An employee in the Tower answered over the radio to the effect that Train 1/257 was ready to depart, and in fact would leave when Train 258 got closer to Englewood. That party also indicated that the ribbon rail train was made up and that it would depart rather shortly. This exchange of information over the radio resulted in the claim at hand. The District Chairman, TCEU, presented claim to Superintendent L. A. Patterson such as is presented in Item 2 of Mr. Leighty's statement of claim. The Superintendent declined the claim and it was appealed to the Manager of Personnel, highest officer designated on the property to handle such matters, who also declined it. The case was discussed in conference, following which the decision was affirmed September 16, 1965. Notice of Organization's intention to submit this claim to your Board was received in copy of letter dated February 21, 1966. The correspondence in this case is attached as CARRIER'S EXHIBIT NO. 1.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose out of a radio-telephone communication between some crew member of Train No. 258 and Yardmaster in Bowl Tower, Englewood, at 7:50 A.M., March 7, 1965. The exact communication, as stated during the handling of the claim on the property, was as follows:
Claim requested payment of one day's pay, at time and one-half rate, on behalf of Telegrapher-Towerman J. I. Wallington, Tower 26 rate.
Superintendent declined the claim on the basis that the communication was not a communication of record as that term has been defined; that it was not an "OS" and did not take the place of train orders. The Organization's District Chairman rejected the Superintendent's decision, and without introduction of additional evidence, appealed to Carrier's highest officer designated to handle the claim. This officer disallowed the claim, pointing out that Organization had not referred to any rule in support thereof.
On September 8, 1965, the General Chairman and Manager of Personnel had a conference which was confirmed by Manager of Personnel in letter of September 16, 1965. He stated: "At that conference I asked you how the exchange of information between the employee at Englewood and the crew member of Train 258 affected the movement of any train, and you stated that you could not say."
On Deceber 3, 1965, General Chairman replied to this statement as follows: "The employees point out that the train crew in charge of Train 258 gave his location as Mile Post 17, and stated they would be at Eureka in about thirty (30) minutes. * * * Further, the crew member ask for a line up on first 257 and the Ribbon Rail Train and was informed that first 257 is ready to leave and the Ribbon Rail Train was made up and would leave when the train crew got the rest of their stuff out."
It is clear that the parties are not in disagreement as to what occurred. The sole question for decision, based upon the issues raised during the handling of the claim on the property, is whether or not the communication was in effect a train order which "affected the movement of any train." The Organization relies solely on the communication itself as representing proof of a prima facie case. We believe the Organization is in error in such reliance. It would be speculation on our part to supply the necessary inferences to support the Organization's position. Inferences may properly be drawn from uncontroverted evidence, but the basic case may not be supported by inferences alone.
Without proof, we have no way of knowing whether the communication did or did not affect the movement of Train 258. There are no allegations that movements of other trains were affected. When the Organization, during the handling on the property, was confronted with a denial that the communication affected the movement of any train, it had the burden of going forward with evidence to support the case. Absent such evidence the claim must fail for lack of proof.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: