(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
 ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
 Station Employee
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brother
 hood (GL-6227) that:

 1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement, particularly Rule 1 - Scope, Rule 3 - Definition of Clerks and Office Machine Operators, Rule 43 - Absorbing Overtime, Rule 63 - Equipment and Article III, Section 1, of the Mediation Agreement, Case 7128 of February 7, 1965, when it required or permitted employes who do not occupy positions coming within and under the craft and class of clerical employes to perform clerical work at its East St. Louis, Illinois Yard Office, beginning on February 21, 1966 and continuing seven (7) days per week thereafter between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 mn.

 2. That ?·.r. R. E. Dollinger, occupant of Night Rate Clerk position No. 1086, assigned 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 mn., and ,1r. W. R. Goldschmidt, Relief Clerk thereto on Sunday and Monday and their successors if any, be compensated for the work lost on each of their work days two hours at punitive rate of Night Rate Clerk position ($4.3765 per hour) until the violation is corrected.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants hold clerical positions at the Carrier's
 East St. Louis Yard Office where, prior to February 21, 1966, the clerical force consisted of nine regular positions and three r=lief positions. On November 15, 1965 the Carrier installed an IBM Printer in the office; on February 21, 1966, three additional I3·f machines were installed. There was no telegrapher force at the yard office prior to February 21, 1966, but, on or about that date, two telegraphers were transferred to the yard office from a relay office about three miles away.

 '"he claim is that the Agreement was violated when, on or about Febraary 21, = 66, t..= Carrier transferred certain clerical work that had been performed '.·,y clerks at the yard office to the two telegraphers to be _oerformed intermittently on the T'M equipment. Rule 1 (Scope), Rule 3 (Definition of Clerks and Office Machine Operators), Rule 43 (Absorbing Overtime), and Rule o3 (Equipment) are specifically cited


as having been violated by the alleged transfer of work. The Carrier's position is that the installation of the IBM equipment and the assignment of telegraphers in the Eas upon the work performed by the clerks at that location. The Carrier specifically states in its Submission that: "Every time the dispute was discussed on the property, the Carrier was very explicit in

 pointing out that there was 'NO' work transferred across craft lines to the telegraphers. In the first place the clerks continue to perform the same work, but with newer this claim."

 The Employes' basic allegation on the property was that telegraphers had performed clerical work consisting of making interchange reports to connections, checking interchanges, and doing other clerical work inside the East St. Louis Yard Office, beginning February 21, 1966 and each day thereafter. The burden of adducing probative evidence to support this allegation was of course upon the Employes. However, the record is barren of the requisite evidence and we can but conclude that the Employes have not met their evidenciary burden. Mere repetition of the basic allegation does not convert it into an established fact. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the claim.

 In conclusion we note that the record of this dispute contains argument and counterargument on a gre have been omitted from the foregoing discussion. The omitted issues are not germane to our disposition of the case and, consequently, our opinion has been confined to the narrow evidenciary ground on which this Award is based.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        The claim is dismissed.

                    Award Number 20217 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-17072

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL, RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTT:
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1974.