(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, on April 26, 1971, it used Track Maintenance Supervisor A. Fena instead of Carpenter-Truck Driver H, Stauty to transport track machinery from Proctor to Steelton (System Claim 1071).

 (2) Carpenter-Truck Driver H. Stauty be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at his straight time rate because of the aforesaid agreement violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that Rule 1, Scope, of the Agreement was violated
 in that, in order to transport track machinery by truck from
 Proctor to Steelton, Minnesota, the Carrier used a Track Maintenance Supervisor
 to drive the truck instead of using claimant who was a regularly assigned B&B car
 penter truck driver. The subject machinery was a small track machine which was
 transported in a supervisory vehicle (pick-up truck) for a distance of about ten
 miles.
puted work did not belong to claimant under the Agreement and that it is and has
 been past practice on the property for supervisors to perform such work. In the
 context of this denial, although the Carrier had the burden of proof as to its
 assertion of past practice, the Organization still had the burden to prove by
 probative evidence that the work belonged to claimant. Furthermore, since the
 Carrier's denial directly challenged the fundamental basis of the claim, the Or
 ganization was put on clear notice that it must produce positive evidence concern
 ing claimant's rights to the disputed work. However, the record shows that, while
 the Petitioner dwelled on the subject of past practice, the Petitioner dealt with
 claimant's rights to the work with only a few vague references and no evidence at
 all. Consequently, on the whole record, we must conclude that Petitioner has not
 offered sufficient evidence to establish that the disputed work belonged to claim
 ant. We shall therefore dismiss the claim.

 i






11iat the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectivkly Carrier and Lrploycs within the meaning of the Raili:ay Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has ,jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.; and



        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONU RAIL; C,yD ADJUSTIwhT BOARD

                            By Order of 7uird Division


        ATTEST: Executive oecreta:y


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1973.