NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
THIRD DIVISION

 Joseph A. Sickles, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Award Number 20620
 Docket Number CL-20576

 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 ( (Formerly Transportation-Communication Div. BRAC)
 (
 (Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake Region)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of C. E. Barr for one day's pay at pro rata rate
 for each Friday, beginning April 17, 1970, for as long
 as the violation continues; and claim for the difference in the time and
 one-half rate and pro rata rate for each Sunday, beginning April 18, 1970,

 also for as long as the violation continues, under Rules 7, 15, 17, 26 and related rules, and the agreements of January 10, 1965, and March 21, 1966.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant's non-contract position was discontinued. He
 asserts that he refused to accept another non-contract
 position and attempted to displace under Rule 26. Carrier states that Claim
 ant accepted the non-contract position, and then resigned same, so that he
 was only allowed to establish himself on the extra board; which he did, under
 protest. Thereafter, he bid for (and was awarded) an assignment which was
 then under advertisement.

 This dispute appears to be solely factual, inasmuch as the parties are in agreement regarding the application of Rule 26. If Claimant did not accept the non-contract position, the claim should be sustained; however if he voluntarily relinquished the position, he was properly required to be placed on the extra board.

 We have carefully scrutinized the record as developed on the property and note a sharp dispute a repeatedly asserted that Claimant never accepted the position, and the Carrier steadfastly insisted
Carrier states that Claimant accepted the wage scale for the new position for a period of time (while he was training an employee for his prior position) although it is conceded that he never physically commenced the duties of the new position. The Organization counters that by stating that Claimant had no control over the amount of money Carrier paid him.

 The Organization forwarded, as an attachment to its Ex Parts Submission, a two page letter from relates to the issue in dispute. Carrier states that the document was never presented to it while the matter was under consideration on the property, and there is no indication in the record which suggests to the contrary.


This Board has long held that we may not consider material which was never presented to the opposing party on the property. See, for example, Award 20214. Accordingly, we must disregard the letter.

 As noted above, the record which was developed on the property contains a series of assertions and denials concerning Claimant's status. For the Board to conclude that Claimant refused the position in question, or that he accepted it and then resigned, we would be required to engage in speculation and conjecture. The burden of proof is on Petitioner, and under this record we are unable to find that he has carried that burden. 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 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: gw

~I~,~r
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February 1975.