(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE.

STAT~T OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement on various dates in March and April, 1973 (identified in letter of claim presentation) when it assigned an employs with no seniority in Rank 3 (H. L. Tackett) to operate a Fy-Rail Motor Crane instead of assigning a Rank 3 employs thereto. (System File 1-5/E-364-5)

 (2) Mr. S. D. Johnson be allowed pay at the motor crane operator's rate for the overtime hours worke H. L. Tackett between Holton and Jena, Tennessee - a total of 38-1/2 hours.

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant S. D. Johnson holds seniority from September
 21, 1971 in a Rank No. 3 job in the Track Subdepartmeat. During March-April, 1973 Carrier assigned one H. L. Tackett, who holds a Rank No. 6 position with seniority date of August 24, 1971, to operate a Hi-Rail Crane on the Knoxville Division between Holton and Jena, Tennessee. On May 22, 1973 the instant claim was filed on behalf of Mr. Johnson alleging that Claimant, rather than Mr. Tackett, should have been assigned to the Hi-Rail Crane operation. But Claimant seeks only the overtime hours worked by Tacket Claimant implicitly suggests that only the overtime assignment of Tackett was violative of the Agreement.

 Our review of the record shown that throughout handy on the property and before the Division Carrier stated flatly that Claimant was not qualified and never passed qualification tests or otherwise demonstrated competence to operate t the past and "felt sure" he could operate a Hi-Rail Motor Crane. As we have stated on occasions too numerous to recount, bare assertions are not evidence and are insufficient to carry the burden of persuasion when a party is put to his proof on a material contested fact. Carrier has called into question Claimant's qualifications and he has not adequately refuted the determination of Carrier that he was not qualified on the HiRail Motor Crane. Accordingl for failure of proof.






That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are
 res ct respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor
 pproved June 21, 1934;

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






                        By Order of Third Division


      ATTEST: Executive Secretary


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1976,