( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7184)

(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties effective January 1, 1946, as revised and an employe outside the Scope of the Clerks' Agreement, specifically a trainmaster.

 (2) Clerk D. Miller now be allowed eight hours at the punitive rate of pay of Position No. 18 in the St. Louis Terminal for March 14, 1971 as a result of the violation of the Agreement by Carrier and further that when required, such duties of physically checking trains and correction of Carrier records, which have been removed from the Agreement, now promptly be restored to employes of the Clerical craft and clas
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that the Scope Rule was violated in that, on
 March 14, 1971, a Trainmaster made an "outbound physical check of Train No. 9043" at Lindenwood Yard in the Carrier's St. Louis Freight Terminal.

 In opposing the claim, the Carrier asserted that, on the claim date, the yard check was made by clerical employees in the usual manner and that clerical :=mployees also prepared a switch list and a train consist report for Train No- 9043. Thus, the Carrier expressly denied that the Trainmaster made a physical check of the train.

 The Petitioner offered no positive evidence that a physical check was made by the Trainmaster, and instead, chose to rely on circumstantial evidence. The Petitioner asserted that the Trainmaster made corrections to the consist of Train No. 9043; based on this assertion the Petitioner further asserts that "the Trainmaster would have first been required to make a physical check of Train No. 9043 in order to detect the error." This quoted assertion is based upon an inference which we find n make corrections in the consist is not clearly established of record. Furthermore, even if it were, system at Lindenwood is largely mechanized and enables an IBM card to record the location of each car in the yard and to follow each car's movement from one track to another. Thus, from the fact that a train consist was corrected one could infer that the correcti


one could infer that the correction resulted from information coming from a physical check of the train. But the record before us does not show any reason to favor one of these inferences over the ocher. Consequently, on the whole record, we conclude that Petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence cc show that the Trainmaster made a physical check of Train No. 9043 on the date in question. We shall dismiss the claim.

        BINDINGS: 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.

 _... i..5£ '.:-'.~