Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the rules of the Clerks' Agreement at Milwaukee, Wisconsin when, over his protest, it required an employe to work CdA Position No. 3, Assistant Hate Clerk, on December 22, 23, 24 and 26, 1969.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe M. R. G1endenning for an additional eight (8) Position 07140 for each day, December 22, 23, and 26, 1969; and an additional four hours at the penalty rate of Demurrage Clerk Position 07140 for December 24, 1969.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Record in this dispute is replete with allegations of
 both parties. Stripped of surplusage, the file in this case
 reveals that the regular occupant of C&O Position No. 3, Assistant Rate Clerk,
 was absent account vacation.

 Claimant, the regular incumbent of Demurrage Clerk Position 07140, alleges that he was required to vacate his position and perform the duties of position of Assistant Rate Clerk for eight (8) hours each day, December 22, 23, and 26, 1969 and for four (4) hours on December 24, 1969. This requirement, Claimant contends, violated paragraph (a) of Rule 32, Overtime, and Articles 6 and 10(b) of the National Vacation Agreement. These provide:








        "Article 10(b). Where work of vacationing employee is din. tributed among two or more employes, such employes will be paid their own respective rates. Hrnrever, not more than the equivalent of twenty-five per cent of the work load of a given vacationing employe can be distributed among fellow employes without the hiring of a relief worker unless a larger distribution of the work load is agreed to by the proper local union committee or official."


It is Carrier's contentions that Rule 17 of the Agreement provides for an employe assigned to one position being temporarily assigned by proper authority to another positi so utilized, was compensated at his ova higher rate of pay while performing the duties of the Assistant Rate Clerk position, strictly in accordance with Rule 17 (a) and (b). Carrier further avers that the amount of time spent by Claimant while temporarily assigned to the position of Assistant Rate Clerk did not exceed two (2) hours' wor
Additionally, Carrier takes exception to the Organization's injection at the highest level of appeal, of an alleged violation of Articles 6 and 10(b) of the Vacation Agreement, declaring that such new +heory changed the basis of the claim to the extent it was no longer the same claim handled on the property at the initial and subsequent levels in the appellate procedure. We feel constrained to reject Carri Labor Act and the Rules of Procedure of the Board (Circular No. 1) is to require full exploration of all possibilities of settlement - either allowance of the claim and/or grievance by Carrier, or withdrawal thereof by Petitioner - of claims and grievances while the dispute is still being considered between the parties on the property.

 Notwithstanding its objections, Carrier likewise introduced new evidence to the Organization's top Representative which had not been theretofore handled with any su in the form of two notorized statements, one from its Chief Clerk and the other from its Assistant Agent, attesting that Claimant was assigned to perform some of the duties of the Assistant Rate Clerk's position, but not exceeding two (2) hours' work each day. This 2-hour-per-day argument and evidence presented by Carrier counters the laployes' arguments pertaining to the Vacation Agreement, i.e., Carrier is permitted to distribute two hours (2f%) of the vacationing employe's work load (Article 10(b)), and there is no showing that either the employes who performed the work or the returning employe was burdened because of Carrier's failure to provide a vacation relief worker (Article 6).
                      Award Number 19540 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-19398


The Record is devoid of any rebuttal or challenge by the Employes with regard to the aforementioned notorised statements; finding nothtat to repudiate them, and since the burden is on the Petitioner to overcome evidence of probative value su
        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 will be dismissed.


                        A W A R D .


        Claim dismissed.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMNT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December 1972.