(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

(a) The Burlington Northern Inc. (hereinafter referred to'as "the Carrier") violated and continues to violate the effective Agreement between the parties, Article 3(f)-thereof in particular, by its action in establishing the position of Assistant Chief Dispatcher in the Hannibal, Missouri office between the hours of 8:00 A.m. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with no provision for relief of the position on Saturdays and Sundays; and combining the dut other positions in the office on such Saturdays and Sundays to avoid using relief or extra train dispatchers to provide proper relief of the position.

 (b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now be required to compensate the senior available qualified extra train dispatcher one day's pay at the pro rata rate of Assistant Chief Dispatcher for each respective Saturday and Sunday January 28, 1973, and for each succeeding Saturday and Sunday until said violation ceases.

 (c) In the event no qualified extra train dispatchers are available on any of the days in the pe shall then be required to compensate the senior qualified regularly assigned train dispatcher who is available due to observance of his weekly rest day, one day's compensation at the punitive rate of Assistant Chief Dispatcher for each of such days.

 (d) Eligible individual Claimants entitled to the compensation claimed herein are readily identifiable and shall be determined by a check of Carrier's records.
 I
 OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier established an Assistant Chief Dispatcher
1973 with hours of 7:59 a.m. to 3:59 p.m. and assigned rest days of Saturdays
 and Sundays. I
assigned rest days (but rather blanked the position and combined duties and I
 responsibilities with other positions), the Employes assert a violation of
 Rule 3(f):


        "The combining of territory, duties or responsibilities, or the blanking of positions to avoid using relief or extra train dispatchers to provide relief on rest days for established positions, will not be permitted except by agreement between the Superintendent and Office Chairman subject to approval of the General Chairman."


Carrier asserts that the claim is defective because it was untimely filed and because it failed specificity. Based upon our disposition of the dispute herein, it is unnecessary to rule on those co
The Employes seem to suggest that their agreement is required in order for Carrier to establish a five-day position. But, in order for us to find a violation, we feel that it is incumbent upon the Organization to demonstrate that Carrier's action was one of avoidance.

 Our review of the matter, as handled on the property, leads us to conclude that no such showing was made. The initial claim states that duties and responsibilities were combined so as to avoid use of relief employes, but it presents no substantiation of that conclusion. Further, the employes seek to justify its claim by the assertion that the "...work attaching to the position does not disappear on Saturday's and Sundays... but must be combined with the territory and duties of other positions as an inescapable and practical matter."

 It was established, in a dispute between these parties, that reliance on inferences, as a basis for an asserted violation of Article 3(f), is not a substitute for proof (see Award 20567). In this regard, it is interesting to note that in its May 24, 1973 correspondence, Carrier stated that " ..the Organization had requested that the Carrier establish a 5-day position to assist the Chief Dispatcher Monday through Friday of each week." In its reply, the Organization stated, " ..It is true that the Organization requested the addition of a position at Hannibal to assist the Chief Dispatcher Monday through Frida request cannot be construed as license to violate the agreement.

 As we read the agreement, Carrier requires an agreement if it desires to combine territories, duties or responsibilities, or blank positions to avoid using established positions. But, in order to establish a violation of Article 3(f) if Carrier fails to enter into an agreement, there must be a showing that Carrier took certain actions to avoid use of relief or extra positions. As stated above, we find no evidence that Carrier so intended, or that such events actually occurred. In fact, it appears that the position was established, not in an effort to request of the Organization.
          Award Number 213001 Page 3

                    Docket Number TD-208$3


Award 20002, relied upon by the Claimant, is not pertinent to this dispute. That case dealt with a reduction of 7-day positions to 5-day positions.and suggests that there was a combining of positions.

        We will dismiss the claim for failure of proof:


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral Searing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved i.; this d1spute are respectively Carrier and Eaplqyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has Jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and

        That the claim will be dismissed for failure of proof.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AaJt7SMiT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ Aa'~qe

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of November 1976.