(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Agreement at Glendale Freight Office, Glendale, Ohio, when it failed to call Mr. Paul M. Mason to work on Saturdays, February 5, 12, 19, and 26, 1972, and each subse-, quent Saturday, and

 (2) Mr. Paul M. Mason shall be paid 8 hours' pay at overtime rate (daily rate $33.99) plus all s
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization urged, on the property, a viola
 tion of Rule l (Scope) and Rule 4(b)2 (Work on Un
 assigned Days.) Rule 4(b )2 states:



While there is dispute as to the precise status of the record, it appears that the following factors gave rise to the claim.

 Prior to June 4, 1973, two (2) clerical positions (represented by the Organization) and one agen the T/C Agreement) were assigned at the Glendale, Ohio Freight Office.


In early June, 1973, the parties merged the Clerk-T/C Agreements.

 In February, 1972, Carrier altered the work schedule of the Agent, and work which he previously performed on Saturdays, at an overtime rate, was assigned to a Relief Agent.

 The Organization states that Claimant's duties, on his regular Monday through Friday assignment, included preparation of empty return waybills and related clerical work. The Relief Agent performed that same work on Saturdays. Thus, Claimant urges a violation of the "Scope" and "Work on rule since June, 1973.

 Carrier states that the Agent did all of the clerical work prior to July 10, 1969, when the first clerical position was established to aid and assist the Agent do all types of clerical work on Mondays through Saturdays since that time. Further, Carrier notes that Claimant never asserted a violation of the rules until February, 1 overtime for the Saturday work, but rather, included it within a relief assignment.
While that doctrine may be pertinent to the question of "Scope
 Rule" violation, it is not applicable to a determination of a vio
 lation of Rule 4(b )2. See Award 20605, citing Awards 18346,
 19219, 19322, 19439 and 20187.

 However, in order to prevail, Claimant has the burden of showing, not only that the complained amount of work was normally performed by him during his regular work week, but that the work was not also performed, on a normal basis by another position. See Award 20605. See, also, Award 19322.

 In this regard, Carrier advised the Organization, on the property, that the relief employee (on Saturday) was performing only work which was done by the Agent during the week (Monday through Friday) and which the Agent had formerly done on Saturday. This information was apparently obtained to show that an employee, other than Claimant, performed the work as a normal part of his regular assignment; which has a significant bearing on an alleged violation of Rule 4(b)2.

 .:._, 1


The organization attached to its Submission, as Exhibit No. 1, a statement from the Agent which is contradictory to his statement referred to above. Althoug Submission, that all data "herein submitted," has been submitted "in substance" to Carrier, Carrier denies that Exhibit 1 was ever presented to it.

 The Exhibit, which is addressed "TO WHOM IT MAY ODNCERN", does not show, on its face, whether it was forwarded to any Carrier Official.

 Numerous Awards of this Board have long held that matters which were not presented to the opposing party, while the matter was being considered on the property, may not be considered by this Board. While there is conflict as to whether Exhibit 1 was presented to Carrier, Claimant's generalized statement should not overcome Carrier's specific denial; especially when the Organization has the burden of proof.

 While the legal contentions of the parties are clearly drawn, we do not feel that this record contains a significant showing that Claimant has carried the burden of proof of a violation of Rule 4(b)2 for the reasons recited above. Moreover, for the same reasons, we are unable to conclude, from this record, a violation of Rule 1. Accordingly, we will dismiss the claim for failure of proof.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes wit the Railway Labor Act, as approved June wl, 1934;

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