(Oney J. Oiler PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Violation of Rules #1-2-3-5-36-38-39-49 and 65 of the

Being required by the Carrier to perform duties of another position which has different assigned hours of work and different assigned days of rest. Also being removed from my regular assigned position of Rate Clerk to fill the position of I.B.M. Clerk, a position which was abolished.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner alleges a violation of Rules 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 36,
 38, 39, 49 and 65 of the Clerks' Master Agreement dated
 January 1, 1965, when he allegedly was required to "perform duties of another
 position" and was "removed from" his "regular assigned position of Rate Clerk
 to fill the position of IBM Clerk" on March 14, 18, 19 and 20, 1971.

 Rule 1 is the Clerks' Scope Rule; Rule 2 sets forth the various Seniority Districts; Rule 3 concerns itself with Seniority; Rule 6, the Exercise of Seniority; Rule 36, Overtime; Rule 39, Authorizing Overtime; Rule 49, Established Rates and Positions, and Rule 65 deals with Effective Date and Changes.

 Petitioner filed his own claims on these alleged violations with Agent-Weighmaster, Mr. G. W. Russell, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and while the language of the claims is not identical in substance they generally made the following allegation:

On appeal through the various appeal steps the same basic format was followed by Petitioner. Each claim letter and each appeal letter that was written by
                    Docket Number MS-19537


Petitioner has been carefully reviewed. It is found that each such letter makes a basic allegation - and nothing more. For instance, not one iota of proof is submitted that Petitioner was, in fact, performing duties of another position; nor, is there any evidence that Petitioner was, in fact, removed from his regular assigned position. Additionally, in the correspondence exchanged on the property and in Petitioner's submission to this Board, not one word is written as to the contention of Petitioner on the manner in which the above-cited Rules were violated. In other words, all that the Board has before it is Petitione·'s claim that he was required to perform duties of another position; that he ;ins removed from his regular assigned position, and that the Carrier v ol.ted nine Rules of the Clerks' Master Agreement. Petitioner has not su~,mi~ted proof supporting these allegations and we are, therefore, left with nu alternative but to dismiss the claim for lack of proof.
        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 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 Claim be dismissed.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 444. A:40~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of June 1972.