NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MS-20913
(Joseph M. Crowe
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Boston and Maine Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the
rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Board,
of my intention to file an ex parts submission on September 17, 1974
herewith covering an unadjusted (unsatisfactory) dispute between me
and the Boston and Maine Corp. involving the question:
Unacceptable denial of my claim for five (5) weeks
vacation against the Boston and Maine Corp.
OPINION
OF HOARD: In this dispute, Petitioner (Claimant) asserts
"denial of my claim for five (5) weeks vacation
against the Boston and Maine Corp." In fact, Petitioner received two
weeks vacation, for which he was scheduled in 1974. He claims five
weeks vacation, based on his "continuous service" with Carrier, as to
which the following dates are pertinent:
1927-1933 - employed by Carrier as a clerk in the Passenger
_ Traffic Department;
1933-1971 - employed by Boston and Maine Transportation Company, a trucking firm, and concededly
legal entity;"
April 20, 1971 - hired as clerk by Carrier after making
application as a new employee.
It is Carrier's contention that Claimant properly received
two weeks vacation in 1974, based on his seniority date of April 20,
1971. Claimant argues, on the other hand, that he should have received five weeks vacation, based on
1927 and "continuous service" with Carries since the latter date.
To buttress his position, Claimant submits various conclusory and aelfserving allegations designed,t
and Maine Transportation Company were "one and the same", albeit conceding that each was a separate
Based on the record evidence, however, we cannot conclude
that Claimant has submitted conclusive probative facts, as contrasted
with mere allegations, sufficient to establish that Carrier and the
Boston and Maine Transportation Company were "one and the same".
Award Number 20843 Page 2
Docket Number MS-20913
Carrier justifiably contends that both firms being different
legal entities "separate and apart" from each other, any service performed by Claimant for the Trans
continuous service in the computation for the number of vacation days to
which Mr. Crowe may be entitled." The record reveals ample evidence in
support of Carrier's position, as witness its posting of annual Rosters
listing Claimant's seniority date as April 20, 1971, to which Claimant
never filed objection as required by the pertinent Rules.
Accordingly, we cite the following established principle
which is controlling upon us here:
"The Board is of the view that Carrier has properly
relied upon a 'burden of proof' defense. We have
considered the handling on the property and are un-
able to detect that Claimant has submitted to us sufficient information as a basis for finding o
See Award 20791 (Sickles).
Additionally, we quote the following pertinent language from
Award No. 12857:
"The rules of the controlling Agreement, together with the
interpretation mutually applied thereto by the Carrier and
by the Organization impel a denial of the Petitioner's
claim."
Based on the merits, therefore, and on controlling authority,
we have no alternative but to deny this claim for lack of proof.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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
the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
That the Agreement was not violated.
Award Number 20543 Page 3
Docket Number MS-20913
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST ~@~
AM Z504
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October 1975.
I