NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJOST'r HOARD
TRIM DIVISION

 Jews F. Scaarce, iefereo

 PARTIES TD DISPMt

 (United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO

 (The Lake Terminal Railroad Company

 Award Neaber 23131
 Docket Namba M8-93065

 STATEME<R' OF CLAIM: "In accordance with the Railway Labor Act as amended,
 please accept this as a formal notice of the organi
 sation's intent to file its ex-pane submission to the Third Divisiom,
 National Railroad Adjustment Hoard in dispute betwen the United Steel
 Workers of America and the Lake Terminal Railroad Ooapany.

 These disputes involve the seniority right of the grievant to perform the work available on the tractaire equipment."

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant in this dispute is a regular assigned Tractair
 machine operator. There are three (3) such regular
 assigned operators on Carrier's property and claimant in the soot senior
 of the three.

 On the clef.: dates, claimant's machine was mot available to him so he was used to perform other duties but was paid at the Traeiair machine operator's rate for the other service performed. Also on the claim dates, one of the other regular assigned operators notified Carrier that he would be late in reporting for his assignment. As a result of the "late reporting" call, a junior extra machine operator was assigned to fill the operator's assignment until the inemlbeat reported. Eosever, the regular employ* subsequently notified Carrier extra employs was therefore continued on the assignment for the entire tour.

 Petitioner cites Rule 15 - Maintenance of Way Department Special Rules as supporting their contention that the senior regular man whose machine was not available to him should have been used to fill the machine operator's vacancy rather than the junior extra employs.

 Carrier contends that there is a long and unchallenged practice of reassigning machine operators whose machine is not available to him while saimtaining the machine op day to day vacancies as was done in these instances.


From our review of the record we find no record of on-property challenge of the stated practice. Rule 15 does not support the position advanced by petitioner. In fact, it does not address the issue involved is this dispute.

 Petitioner has failed in their burden to substantiate the alleged violation with probative evidence. We oust deny the claim.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the floyes 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; sad

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU3TWXTBOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1981.