(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line
 ( Railroad Company

1. The Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it abolished Rate Clerk Position Nos. 723 and 724 and concurrently therewith established Positions Nos. 731 and 732, Train Clerk, performing the same duties as the abolished positions, but at a lesser rate of pay;

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Clerk Maurine Gerahauser, and/or her successor or successors in interest, namely, any employe or employee who may have stood in the same status as claimant and who were adversely affected, as the incumbent of Position No. 731 the amount of $1.3843 per day, commencing with March 30, 1974 and continuing for each and every day thereafter that a like violation occurs.

 3. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Relief Clerk Marvin Murray, and/or his successor or successors in interest, namely, any employe or employes who may have stood in the same status as claimant and who were adversely affected, as the-incumbent Relief Position No. 1 the amount of $1.3843 per day commencing with Wednesday, April 3, 1974 and continuing for each and every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday thereafter that a like vi
4. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Clerk A. E. Williams, and/or his successor or successors in interest, namely any other employe or employee who may have stood in the same status as claimant and who were adversely affected, as the incumbent of Position No. 732 the amount of $1.3$43 per day commencing with April 5, 1974 and continuing for each and every day thereafter that a like violation occurs.

 OPINION OF BOARD: In March of 1974, Carrier abolished two Rate Clerk
 positions, and transferred certain work to Train Clerk
 Jobs. The daily rate for the Train Clerk position was $1.3843 less than
 for the prior positions.

 The Organization objects to the Carrier's action, and cites Rule 4o:


          "Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under the same or different titles covering relatively the same kind or grade of work for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay or evading the application of this agreement."


Once again, this Hoard is confronted with a sharp factual dispute. The Carrier denies a violation of the agreement and argues that different types of work are handled by the respective positions under consideration, and there are allegations of certain factual matters in the Submissions and Rebuttals which were not handled while the matter was under consideration on the property.

 Quite frequently, when there are sharp factual disputes in this type of a case, the Employee - who have the burden of proof - fail in their claim because the evidence does not preponderate to their benefit. Hut, in this case we feel that the Employes made a clear prima facie showing of a violation when it submitted three statements from employee who perform the various duties on a regular and continuing basis.

 Those statements clearly assert that the employes are performing identical work, and they spell out that work. To be sure, in subsequent correspondence the Carrier took issue with those assertions, but did not present direct evidence of contradiction by individuals who perform the duties involved. Carrier suggests that we ignore the statements because they are identical and were assumedly prepared by the same person. We do not feel that such an assertion, in and of itself, is a valid basis for ignoring the evidence, absent some showing of collusion, fraud, or the like.

 Accordingly, we find that the Employes have made a prima facie showing of a violation and that Carrier has failed to rebut same.

 Carrier has objected to that portion of the Claim which seeks relief for successors, etc. While clearly this Board will not engage in speculative Awards; nonetheleaa, the dispute is specific in nature and the claim speaks in direct terms to employee who were incumbents of clearly defined positions, identified by specific number. Thus, we feel that the claim is not speculative in nature and should be sustained.

        FEMiNGS: 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;
                    Award Number 21277 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21142


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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:~// i(I1~· ~IrV~
 tecutive Secretary

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