(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks
 ( Freight Handlers, E--,)ress and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Kansas City Sruthern Rail,;ay Company

(1) Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the current Clerk's Agreement, at Texarkana, Texas, seniority district No. 19, by transferring incumbent of so-called 2(a) position under the Clerk's Agreement, (Traffic D seniority rights in District No. 19, is caused or permitted to perform assignment duties of Claimant
(2) Carrier shall compensate the following C.aimant, and for time claimed, account violation of Extra Board Agreement and dine 40(j), by use of impraoer employee to perform Claimant's assigned duties:

 (a) -- L. L. Boggs for eight (8) hours on each of the following day: May 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29; June 1, 2,

 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30; July 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 1971.

 OPINION OF BOARD: In addition to its assertion that the issues were disposed
 of by Public Law Board No. 861, the Carrier urges that the
 Organization has failed to substantiate its claim by a preponderance of the
 evidence. See Awards 15536 (McGovern), 10067 (Weston) and 14682 (Dorsey). An
 Organization must prove that clerical work was, in fact, allocated to and per
 formed by others to the satisfaction of the Board. See Awards 14087 (Coburn),
 14157 (Hall) and 12848 and 12849 (Ables).





The Organization stresses that this case differs frog, Public Law Board Ho. 861 (which considered an alleged violation of a Scope Rule) because the primary issue here is preference of senior employees to perform certain work on rest (unassigned) days.

 This Board is unable to find substantive proof to support the position of the Organization. The clai is urged, Claimant should have performed certain work. In the original denial, a Company official requested a listing of the duties involved because of his understanding that clerical work in question was properly assigned. We do not find any such a definitive listing. Although the record contains generaliza. tions regarding the duties that "Chief Clerk" Wells may have performed at certain times, it fails to designate, with any degree of certainty, the exact work performed by him.

 The record is further confused by a statement of the Vice General Chairman that:

        "The Brotherhood is in agreement that Chief Clerk J. L. Wells can do clerical work whic:: is assigned to him but we are definitely not in agreement that Chief Clerk J. L. Wells can be used as a Fireman, so to say as to be used in any position

        that happens to get behind in its work." `,


Although the dispute evolves around "seniority" (and the parties dispute the seniority retention of Mr. Wells) the record, as handled on the property, fails to indicate the seniority status of the Claimant.

 In short, a thorough reading of the entire record fails to reveal a clear definition of the precise work in question, nor does it adequately show the meaner and times when the work was performed allegedly in violation of the Agreement.

        In the instant dispute, we note with favor Award 18148 (Dorsey):


        "From the evidence of record we are unable to resolve the conflict. We, therefore are compelled to dismiss the claim for failure of proof."


See also the Award 19939 of this Referee.

 For the reasons stated herein, the claim is dismissed for failure of proof. Inasmuch as the claim is disposed of on these procedural grounds, no determination is made concerning other issues raised by the parties.
                  Award Fllnber 20026 page

                  Docket huber CL-19989


        FIIIDIMS: The Third Division of the tdjustnent Bosrd, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral herring;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Rails:ay Labor Act, as approved Ju:,c 21, 1934;

 Tnat this Division of the Adjustrc;nt Board has ,jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Claim be dismissed.


                        A W A jt - D


        Claim dismissed.


                            HATIOML F.AILSCAD ADJUST,.^1,'? BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~.~.
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day or October 1913.