(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned and used other than Track Department forces to perform track work at Amarillo, Texas on June 3, 4, 8, 9, W-102).

 (2) Mr. J. A. Sasuada be allowed twelve (12) hours of pay at his straight time rate and Messrs. R. B. Sain, R. A. Blackwell and E. Navarro each be allowed forty-four (44) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates beca Part (1) hereof.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier used three station laborers, Class 3
 clerical employes to perform work at Amarillo
 Texas. They cleaned dirt and trash from between the rails and ties and
 hauled it away in a company truck; the work extended over a distance of
 about four blocks, from Pearce to Johnson Street in Amarillo. The MofW
 Employes contend that this work should have been assigned to the Claim
 ants who are Laborers within the MofW Track Department and who are regu
 larly assigned to the section gang headquartered at Amarillo.

 The Carrier's defense on the property was that the work was merely station cleanup and that Group 3 clerical employes have performed similar work for years at Amarillo. The Employes unequivocally denied this defense and consistently asserted that the work in question involved "doing track work." In addition, the Employes provided Carrier with a February 16, 1972 letter from the General Chairman of the Clerks' Organization which advised that hi on behalf of the three clerical employes who performed the work; in pertinent part this letter states:



The Carrier made no denial of the substance of the above letter on the property or in its submission, but the Carrier's Rebuttal Brief does argue against the probative value of the letter.

 On the basis of the foregoing, and the whole record, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the disputed work belongs to the MofW Employes. Th as previously noted, was not mentioned by the Carrier on the property or in its Submission; and, although the Carrier's rebuttal statement argues against the probative value of the letter, this argument is made when the Employes have no opportunity to answer and, obviously, the argument is not as convincing as it might have been if made earlier in the dispute. We conclude therefore that the evidenciary value of the letter withstands the Carrier's argument. We also note that, although the Carrier asserted that Class 3 clerical employes had performed similar work for years at Amarillo, the Carrier offered no evidence on this point and thus failed to carry its burden to prove an alleged past practice.

 With respect to the monetary portion of the claim, the Employes object to consideration of anything other than the full aunt of the claim, on the ground that the Carrier interposed no defense to this matter on r"< property. We agree in part and disagree in part with the Employes' objection. We shall not consi available to perform the work, but we shall consider the propriety of the claim in relationship to the aunt of time consumed by the clerical employes in performing the work. although they kept no exact account of the time consumed, and on no date spent the entire day on the work." Carrier's Rebuttal Statement says that the clerical employes did perform work on June 3 and 4, but not on the other dates of the claim." While this information is contradictory and inadequate to show precisely how many hours were involved in the disputed work, it is nonetheless persuasive that the work did not extend over six full work days as stated in the claim. In view of the nature of the work, and that it extended over a distance of four blocks, we believe that three work days is a reasonable time to allow for the work. Accordingly, we shall sustain the claim for June 3, 4 and 8, 1971.





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








ATTEST: . i &90 ~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1974.