(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood


1978, it used Foreman T. Gray to operate the truck assigned by bulletin
 to Truck Operator C. Bailey LSystem File TRRA 1978-7/013-293-16/.

 (2) Truck Operator C. Bailey be allowed three (3) hours of pay at the truck operator's rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On January 24, 1978, it became necessary to move
 Truck No. 265 to the Brooklyn, Illinois shop for repairs to the air compressor. Carrier assigned Foreman T. Gray to drive the vehicle.

 The Organization claims that Carrier violated the Agreement, specifically Rule 1 Scope, Rule 2 Classification, and Rule 3 Seniority when it failed to assign the task to Claimant, Truck Operator Charles Bailey. The Organization contends that since Truck No. 265 was assigned to District Gang No. 2, and Claimant, the Truck Operator for the gang, was available, and there was no emergency, the work was properly Claimant's. It asks that Claimant be allowed three (3) hours of pay at the truck operator's rate.

 Carrier denies that it has violated the Agreement. Carrier contends that there is nothing in the rules guaranteeing Claimant the exclusive right to operate the vehicle. It argues that under the terms of the Agreement, as well as past practice, Foremen may be assigned to operate Carrier owned or leased trucks.

 A thorough reading of provisions cited by the Organization indicates that there is no specific language which gives Truck Operators the exclusive right to operate the Carrier's trucks.


There is nothing in the Agreement which reserves this work to the Truck Operator class. It is safe to assume that if the parties intended the work of operating motor trucks to be performed exclusively by a certain class of employes, they would have stated so. Instead, it appears, under the terms of the Agreement, that this assignment could have been made to either Claimant or to a . Track Foreman. (Track Foremen are covered by the same Controlling Agreement).

 Carrier argued that the Foremen had traditionally operated the trucks. That is, it claimed that there is a past practice that Foremen operate the vehicles. Carrier was obligated to support this contention. It did not. Carrier failed to introduce evidence to substantiate its assertion. Therefore, we must conclude that "the practice" was not established.

 Despite Carrier's failure to prove that Foremen had traditionally operated trucks, it remains incumbent upon the Organization to introduce evidence to support its assertion that the disputed work belonged to Claimant since, as already noted, the Agreement does not guarantee the assignment to Claimant. What this Board said in Third Division Award 20425 is equally applicable here:

We must conclude that the Organization has not met its burden here. Thus, we mist dismiss the grievance in its entirety.



                    Docket Number I·b7-22823


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; anti

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:,~ .'
        :.vecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of February 1980.