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

1. The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement as revised May 1, 1955, when it abolished position or Clerk-Stenographer, Transportation Department, assi.ning duties of that position to remaining Agreement covered positions in that Department. and then used .an Excepted "P" position employe to perform the work.

 2. Claimant employes H. F. McKellin, M. M. Repsher, G. W. Dougherty and D. A. Reed or their successors, shall be compensated two (2) hours each at the ,itive rate, each and every day commencing with September 16, 1970, until such ,,me as Mrs. Gloria Siegfried, employe holding the Excepted "P" position, is no longer permitted to perform the duties of the abolished position, and the work is returned to positions under full coverage of the Agreement, as assigned by abolishment notice dated
OPINION OF BOARD: The Petitioner brings this claim before the Board on two
 grounds: First, that there was no Excepted "P" position to
 which Mrs. Siegfried could be properly assigned following the abolition of her
 Clerk-Stenographer position; and Secondly, subsequent to her assignment to an
 Excepted "P" position she continued to perform the same duties of her previously
 abolished Clerk-Stenographer position.

 With respect to the first contention, it is clear that Mrs. Siegfried, subsequent to the abolition of her Clerk-Stenographer position, was appointed to a vacant Excepted "P" position. This vacancy was caused by the promotion of its previous incumbent, Mrs. Kutos, to a position outside the Scope of the Agreement. The Organization argues that at the time Mrs. Kutos wasn't holding an Excepted "P" position. The Carrier, however, submitted evidence which clearly shows that Mrs. Kutos had, in fact, occupied an Excepted "P" position prior to her promotion. The Organization has not submitted evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we find that there was an Excepted "P: position to which Mrs. Siegfried could be properly assigned.

 The denial of the first part of Petitioner's argument still leaves us with the contention that fully covered work from the Clerk-Stenographer's position s assigned to the Excepted "P" position which Mrs. Siegfried now occupies. Care .11 examination of the record indicates that Petitioner's case is based, at best,


n_ lmsupported allegations. There appears to be only one document to support t`te Organization's position that fully covered work was transferred to an excepted posltien; a 12-p a::-ues is evidence of. the filing which had been handled by Mrs. Siegfried in her Clork -1,tenographer's position and which she allegedly still handles in her Exc(·pted "P" po '_o show how the filing was done and by whom at anytime, both before and after the claim date.

 This entire claim suffers from lack of proof; there is insufficient evidence to ,naport the contentions of Petitioner.

        _FT-:.')'_1'_d:_S: T!ie Third ^.i vision of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and (olds:


        f'.,;t the parties waived oral hearing;


-I»t the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are icshectivcl'; t;..irric- .,nd Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, i : approved ,opine 21, 193+;

 Chat this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ee4s ./
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March 1973.