(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
 Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
 ( Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond, and
 ( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property
 ( of Penn Central Transportation Company,
 ( Debtor

(1) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, except as amended, particu Scope Rule, Memo of Understanding. When on November 20, 1969 and all subsequent dates, until claim is adjusted,,it allowed J. C. Bettwy and Ken Veit and other electricians employed in the Battery Shop to haul batteries and other material related to the building up and repairing of batteries. They have been using the new electric fork truck recently purchased. There is a established truck operators position at this location covered by the Clerks Ag load is sufficient enough to have two or more electricians hauling company material, management is bound by the Clerks Agreement to advertise another position. It seems ridiculous to pay two electricians the sum of seven dollars and forty cents per hour, when management can have the same ,job

 done by a regular truck operator for three dollars and eight cents per hour.

 No other class or craft post bulletins for positions, listing industrial truck operators, tractor Fork Truck, Caterpillar, sweeper, Chore Boy operators and truckmen.

 I am listing bulletin numbers showing this: N-194, P-214, N-127, T-331, P-330, P-474, P-482, T-1, T-11 and T-70.

in no way incidental to the function of repair work, therefore we claim the exclusive right to the hauling of company material.

 And in conclusion if management has in the past on occasion used personell not covered by the Clerks Agreement to transport company material. It was then and is now, in violation of the Clerks Agreement. We have many claims paid our employees due to shop craft personell not covered by the Clerks Agreement hauling company material.


That Mr. E. R. Utz, roster number 33, occupation truck operator,
 be paid ei ht hours wages at time and half rate, for the above men-
 tioned dates and all subsequent dates until the claim is adjusted.
 (Docket 2667)

 OPINION OF BOARD: On November 29, 1969, Carrier permitted electricians
 to operate the new "Clark" highlift truck for trans
 portation of batteries. Claimants assert that prior to said date, Clerks
 operated all industrial equipment relative to the stacking of batteries
 and delivering same to and from the shop.

 Although Claimants operate under a General Scope Rule, they state that only bulletins advertising positions to clerical employes refer to operations of all type of industrial equipment.

 Carrier states that the "Clark" Tranatacker is operated solely within the confines of the shop by electricians to handle the cycling and stacking of batteries. Moreover, Carrier states that the electricians have performed the same work, for many years, with a similar type of Transtacker, and that Clerks continue to deliver batteries to and from the shop. It is conceded that the new machine is ridden by an electrician whereas the old one was operated from a walking position.

 The Organization which represents the Electricians supports Carrier's contentions.

 The Employes assert that the Carrier failed to respond to its claim within the contractually required thirty (30) day period. Carrier asserts that it did not receive the January 28, 1970 claim until February 3, 1970 and that its March 3, 1970 denial was submitted within twenty eight (28) days. We have considered the suggestions and counter suggestions of possible devious activities of when letters were forwarded and received. To dispute an assertion of receipt - when the date suggested is not unreasonable when compared to the date assertedly transmitted - requires some showing of intentional evasion. Nothing has been submitted here other than conjecture. We also note a significant time lapse before the denial was submitted in a timely fashion.

 As we read the record, and consider the contentions advanced, it appears that the Employes express concern and assert an Agreement violation, because electrician shop - as contrasted to Carrier's insistence that the use by the electricians was confined to the shop.

 We are unable to find arty substantive evidence of record to support the Employes' claim that th
                  Award Number 20981 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-20817


"to and from the shop", or doing any work other than the same type performed previously within t
        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 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

        That the claim is dismissed for failure of proof.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Z9 AVO
        Executive Secretary


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