(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Long Island Rail Road Company

1. The Carrier violated the established practice, understanding and provisions of the Clerks' Agreement, particularly Rules 2-A-1, 2-A-2, 9-A-1, 9-A-2, among others, when it failed to post certain bulletins in places accessible to all employes a of Bulletin No. 4 which was awarded to a junior clerk (E. G. Rath) effective June 2, 1971, as her office never received the bulletin.

 2. That Clerk Swift be awarded and assigned the position held by Junior Clerk Rath effective June 2, 1971 and be paid the monetary difference between her position and the position awarded Clerk Rath, including all overtime and for each additi until the violations are corrected and Clerk Swift is properly assigned to the position she should have been awarded had the bulletin been accessible.

 3. The Carrier further violated the specific provisions of Rule 4-D-1 of the Clerks' Agreement and Article V, Section 1 (a) of the National Agreement, dated August 21, 1954, when it failed to render proper reasons for disallowance and did not claim they were not in violation of the provisions of the Clerks' Agreement within the sixty (60) days' time limit period of claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: A certain position was awarded to an employee less senior
 than Claimant when Carrier allegedly failed to distribute
 properly the bid sheet advertising the position. Claimant advises that she
 first became aware that the position had been filled five days after bids were
 closed. One week later, she complained to the Carrier.












The parties dispute the propriety of considering certain correspondence submitted to the Carrier app procedural step on the property. The Board finds that the information contained in the correspondenc is unnecessary to rule on Carrier's objection.

 Certainly, as Carrier urges an Organization has a burden of proving its claim. See the Award of this Referee in 19833, citing Awards 10067 (Weston), 14682 (Dorsey), 15536 (McGovern); and it mist prove every element necessary for sustaining an Award. Award 15670 (Kenan). We have reviewed the record in that light.

 The Agreement requires the Carrier to post bulletins in places accessible to all employees affected. During all phases of the handling of the matter on the property, Claimant insisted that there was no posting and that she was not aware of the bid sheet advertising the position until after the job had been filled.

 In reply to the claim, the Carrier stated that the bulletin had been sent to a certain clerk on a certain day, which procedure coincided with "standard practice" and that the bulletin should have been received by the Claimant in sufficient time to bid. Further, the Carrier states that this was the "first complaint" of record concerning its distribution procedures, and that the Carrier's responsibility ends when the bulletins are released for posting.

 Under the procedures of this Board, we feel that the Claimant clearly framed an issue when she advised the Carrier that the bulletin had not been posted or distributed in accordance with the terns of the Agreement. That assertion established a prima facie case. While the burden of proof does not switch, once a prima facie case is established, the burden of moving forward with contradictory evidence falls upon Carrier. Here, Carrier did not suggest that the bulletin had, in fact, been properly distributed or that
                        Docket Number CL-19986


      Claimant was negligent in some fashion. Instead, Carrier was content to defend its position on the grounds that its procedures should _have assured notification to the Claimant, and that its procedures were reasonable. Under these circumstances, and in light of the language of the Agreement the Board is of the view that the Claimant did satisfy the burden.


      The Carrier suggests that the record contains an improper reference to the number of a bulletin and the identity of the successful bidder. It is noted, however, that that matter was not raised on the property and accordingly, it is inappropri


      Claimant failed to object until June 14, 1971, and the record shows that she was subsequently awarded the position, on a permanent basis, effective September 29, 1971. Accordingly, Claimant is awarded the monetary difference between her position and the position awarded to a less senior employee on June 2, 1971, but only for the period from June 15, 1971 through and including September 28, 1971. Because of the disposition of this dispute, it is unnecessary to consider 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 Agreement was violated.


                          A W A R D


            Claim No. 1 is sustained to the extent stated in the Opinion.


            Claim No. 2 is sustained to the extent stated in the Opinion..


            Claim No. 3 is denied for reasons stated in the Opinion..


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


      ATTEST: 144 (-

            xecutive Secretary


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day ofSeptember 1973,


i