(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES 7O DISPUTE: (Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, dated May 1, 1966, amended January 1, 1971, particularly Rules 3, 6, 11 and others, when on August 2, 1978, the position of Relief Yard and Inventory Clerk at Springfield, Ohio, was abolished but Carrier continued to work subject position until reestablishing subject posi 7, 1978. This position improperly abolished as the duties still existed and necessary to be performed as evidenced by use of furloughe
(b) The Carrier now be required to compensate M. A. Adams at the rate of $58.85 including ODLA for each and every date this position was filled by the furloughed employes after August 1, 1978. This compensation to be in addition to his regular earnings.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim alleges that various rules of the Agreement
 were violated by reason of Carrier's abolishment of
 Claimant's position of Relief Yard and Inventory Clerk at Springfield, Ohio,
 effective August 2, 1978.

 The Carrier states that the position was abolished in accordance with Agreement rules due to the requirements of the service; that Claimant Adams assumed furlough status when he failed to exercise his seniority to positions that were available to him; that on August 15, 1978, he marked off and declared himself unavailable for short vacancies and/or temporary assignments; that Claimant received a notice on August 17, 1978 to report for a permanent vacancy, and that he was subsequently removed from service by the Carrier when he failed to respond within seven days of receipt of the notice, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Agreement.

 The issue involved herein is the abolishment of the Relief Yard and Inventory position at Springfield, Ohio.

 We have reviewed the record carefully and are forced to the conclusion that the Organization has While many assertions have been made, it is well settled that assertions alone do not constitute proof. We have no alternative but to deny the claim for lack of proof of a violation.






That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Tabor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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



        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ALULJSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 40J&

      Ebcecutive Secretary


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

                                      / 1 tns;i


                                      i

                                          ,~}~ ; . . _ 1..


                                          ~o~; C-