(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned electricians instead of B&B forces to paint the substation at Cumberland, Maryland on September 6, 1976 (System File CUM-653/2-MG1680).

 (2) Carpenters, R. G. Kerns, W. W. Hott, J. R. Haines, S. R. Durst, R. W. Haines, Jr. and J. Smith each be allowed pay at their respective time and one-half rates for an equal proportionate share of the fifty-four (54) man-hours expended by electricians in performing the work described in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants in this case are employed as Carpenters
 in Carrier's B&B Department. They were available
 for work when on September 6, 1976, Carrier utilized Electricians to
 perform certain painting work at the electric sub-station at
 Cumberland, Maryland. The work consisted of painting the steel
 structures of the sub-station to which the electric apparatus -
 insulators, wire, switches, etc., - is attached.

 Petitioner has pointed to Rule 1(c) of their Agreement which says:





Petitioner has further argued that "this is the first time in fifty or more years that other than Maintenance of Way forces were used to paint this structure."

 Carrier has said that since this sub-station was constructed in 1955, the Electrical forces "have painted the steel structure as needed."

 The Electrical Workers, who were involved here as an interested third party, have told us that:<
        "Carrier's Electrical forces has (sic) built and maintained (including painting) electrical substations at least as far back as 1924


and that:

        "The work involved in the instant case is actually the third time the Electricians have comnletelv painted this particular substation." (Underscore in original)


The record in this case contains dramatic conflicts in the evidence, allegations and assertions which are presented by the parties to the dispute. It is well established that this Board has no way of resolving conflicts in the factual evidence of any dispute. In Award No. 16152 (Ives) of this Division we find:

        "Analysis of the conflicting evidence offered by the parties in support of their respective positions discloses an irreconcilable conflict of facts, and well established that the burden of proof rests with the Claimant in such disputes. Awards 15597 and 15765."


That logic is equally applicable here. There simply are not sufficient evidentiary facts in this case to permit a finding that Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 1(c) in this particular instance. Accordingly the claim will be d_smissed.
                    Awar: Number 22428 Page 3

                    Docket Number NW-22323


        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

        Claim dismissed in accordance with Opinion.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive ecretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1979.


i

 i