(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: f
 (J. F. Nash and R. C. Haldeman, Trustees of the Property of
 ( Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Debtor

(a) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties effective May 1, 1955, as revised when it piece mealed out the duties and/or work of positions first and middle trick Lead Clerk-Crew Dispatcher at Hazleton, Pa.

 (b) Carrier due to its actions was able to abolish the first trick Lead Clerk-Crew Dispatcher at this point.

 (c) Carrier shall now be required to pay Mr. E. Mulreaney, an additional days pay at punitive rate due to this violation that forced Mr. E. Mulreaney to lose his regular assignment as first trick Lead Clerk-Crew Dispatcher and be assigned to the middle trick position of Lead Clerk-Crew Dispatcher from July 1, 1970, up to and including such time as this violation is corrected.

 fd) Carrier shall now be required to pay Mr. D. Roarty, who held middle trick at this point that was abolished due to carrier's violations a days pay for each and every working day from July 1, 1970, until such time as this violation is corrected.

 (e) Carrier shall be required to restore this position first trick Lead Clerk-Crew Dispatcher, and restore all the work and/or duties of these positions that were piece mealed out to employee not covered under the Agreement and also the work a work and/or duties being performed by Supervisors and/or other official positions.

 (f) Carrier having violated Rule 33, Time Limits, this claim must be allowed.

 i

 -.:


            OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves, principally, the abolition of a first

            trick position and the re-establishment of the position on

            the middle trick. There are two Claimants.


            Both parties raise contentions of violations of Rule 33 - by the other side. The Organization insists that the Carrier violated the time limit provisiom .of the Rule and t the "usual" manner on the property and also raises a time limit point. With respect to both arguments, after careful research, we can only conclude that the record is in hopeless conflict. Also, we find that neither side hoe submitted sufficient evidenc will move to the merits.


            The record on the substantive issues is not unlike the record on the procedural arguments; the record shows considerable allegation, argument and counter-argument but little or no probative evidence. The Organization has listed nineteen Rules (and "related rules") as being violated. However, no evidence has been supplied indicating how or when these rules were violated.


            This Board has long been dedicated to the proposition that the initiating party moat support its claim by competent evidence. It is well established in a long line of awards that the burden of proof !s upon the Petitioner. (See for example 15535, 16675 and 18040). Petitioner has offered insufficient evidence in this record to support its contentions of an alleged violation of the Agreement.


                  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 Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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.


                              A WAR D


                  Claim dismissed.


              NATIOYAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division 001, ATTEST:

                  Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1973 . . ..`3~'-<'s: ~~