( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, GL-

1. That the Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it arbitrarily and improperly established a rate of pay for the new position of Rate and Bill Clerk No. 2 without prior negotiation between the parties;

 2. That the Carrier shall now be required to establish through negotiations, a proper rate of pay for the position of Rate and Bill Clerk No. 2;

 3. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Clerk Mary C. Del Brocco, and/or her successor or successors in interest, namely, any other employe who may have stood in the same status as claimant, and who was adversely affected, the difference between the rate of pay of Rate and Bill Clerk Position No. 2, established through negotiations; and the rate of pay arbitrarily established by the Carrier ($43.4944 per day) commencing on May 7, 1974 and for each and every day thereafter, five days per week Monday through Friday, that a like violation exists;

 4. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate all other employes who were adversely affected, for the difference between the rates of pay they received, and that which they would have received had the Carrier properly established a of Rate and Bill Clerk No. 2 and bulletined said position in accordance with Rules 9 and 10 of the applicable Agreement, to be determined by a joint check of the Carrier's records, commencing May 7, 1974 and for each and every day thereafter that a like violation occurs.

 OPINION OF BOARD: As a result of certain asserted technological changes,
 Carrier made alterations in its clerical forces; abolishing and establishing certain positions.<
On May 1, 1974, Carrier bulletined a position in the "Car Control Center", entitled "Rate and Bill Clerk No. 2."

 The position was awarded on May 7, 1974, and thereafter, this claim was submitted.


The employes assert that the duties of the new position are so diverse from prior positions that Bile 41 was violated by Carrier's pay rate for the position:

Although the Organization does not request this Board to establish a rate of pay for the position of urges us to direct Carrier to enter into negotiations to establish an appropriate rate of pay; and cites authority concerning our~jurisdiction in that regard.

 Carrier denies that it has violated the Agreement or that its rate of pay for the position is, in any manner, improper. Moreover, Carrier cites authority to suppo that the Organization has not availed itself of the provisions of Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

 Among its numerous defenses, Carrier has argued that Claimants have not satisfied the burden of proof, and notes that a number of factual assertions to this Board were not considered during the handling on the property.

 Is order for this Board to face the question of an appropriate remedy, it is, of course, necessary to find a factual showing - on the property - to warrant a finding of a'rules violation. In this regard, we have thoroughly examined the handling.on the property.

 In the initial claim letter, it is asserted that Carrier established a new position, and that no sim seniority district. The denial letter stated that the Organization had failed to carry the burden of proof to show a violation. In its appeal, the Organization repeated its conclusionary assertions. In its reply, Carrier spelled out, at length any response by the employes or additional assertions at the final conference.

 To be sure, the employes made factual assertions to this Board, but that does not substitute for the requirements of handling on the property. In short, the record fails to show that a factual presentation was made on the property sufficient to demonstrate, factually, a violation.

 We would be remiss if we did not cost upon a procedural deficiency cited by the employes.



which purports to show that the Carrier Official who received the initial claim sought (and .received) aid and assistance from an official who participated in the appeals pro that his assistance was improper. This activity, it is asserted, violated Rule 25.

 We have searched the record, in vain, in an effort to find any direct evidence that the asserted improper intervention was raised on the property.

 We do note, however, in Carrier's reply to the Ex Parte Submission, a reference to the fact that the "damaging correspondence" during the November 7, 1974 conference. If that were the case, it would appear to us that the employes had ample opportunity (almost 5 months prior to service of intention to file an ex parts submission with this Board) to as This, they failed to do.

 Based upon a long series of well-reasoned Awards, which have fully contemplated the requirements of the Railway Labor Act, we are required tc note the failure to present a sufficient basis to support a finding of a violation while the dispute dismiss 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 iherein; and








        ATTEST: ~~ Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1976.