(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

(1) Carrier violated the terms of the current Agreement between the parties at Birmingham, Alabama on each date of November 28, 29, December 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 1970; January 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 1971 when it required and permitted an employee working a lower rated position to perform the assigned duties of Position No. 5-C and failed to permit Mr. B. N. Rawlinson to perform the required service.

 (2) Mr. B, N. Rawlinson shall now be allowed one day's pay at the rate of Position No, 5-C for each date of November 28, 29, December 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 1970; January 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23 and 24, 1971.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, the incumbent of Position No. 5-C, Thomas Yard,
 Birmingham, Ala., is assigned a 5 day week with rest days of
 Saturday and Sunday. His bulletin duties include working the hold track and hand
 ling oversized loads for clearance and movement. The claim is that these duties
 were exclusively assigned to Position 5-C and, hence, the Agreement was violated
 when such duties were performed on each of the claim dates by the incumbent of
 Relief Position No. 19-C.

 On the property the Carrier denied that the hold track and oversize load duties were exclusively assigned to Position No. 5-C and also asserted that all clerical employees at Thomas Yard perform such duties. The Organization controverted each of these p
The thrust of Petitioner's case is that, because the bulletin on Position No. 5-C expressly ment Position No. 19-C did not, the duties have been exclusively assigned to the occupant of Position No. information drawn from the face of the pertinent bulletins, But, as previously indicated, with knowledge of the contents of the bulletins and the meaning placed thereon by Petitioner, the Carrier entered a denial of exclusive assignment of the duties to claimant.

 In this state of the record we must conclude that Petitioner has not carried its burden of proof in regard to exclusive assignment of the duties to claimant. In respect to a job bulletin, which describes particular work, this Board has held that such a bulletin, if challenged, does not constitute conclusive evidence of an exclusiv


14944, and 15695. In the face of Carrier's denial of the exclusive assignment of the duties to claimant, the Organization had the burden of producing evidence other than the bulletins in order to establish the facts underlying the claim; however, no such evidence was forthcoming and we shall dismiss the claim.

        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 is dismissed.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June 1973.