Joseph A. Sickles, Referee


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company


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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when Section Foreman P. G. Lopez was not used to perform overtime service on his assigned section territory (Section 561) on August 19, 20, 26 and 27, 1978 (Carrier's File S 310-278).

 (2) Section Foreman P. G. Lopez be allowed forty (k0) hours of pay at his time affil one-half rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant is regularly assigned as the Section Foreman
 on Monday through Friday, with Saturdays and Sundays as
 rest days. '

 On four rest days, the terrier utilized a Tamper MAT-48 and .a different operator to perform certain track surfacing on the Claimant's assigned territory. Rather than utilizing the Claimant to supervise the performance of the work on his section, the (terrier used a junior Track Foreman for the 10 hours of overtime on each of the fo
The Flaployes have cited the "Work on Unassigned Days Rule", and they state that the work should have been done by the "regular employee" who, in this case, is the Claimant.

 It is rather obvious that the dispute centers around the Carrier's contention that the Claimant "was not qualified to run Tamper, MAT-48", even though the Organization asserts that said allegation is not material because the work is question consisted of supervising the work rather than operating the machine.

 On January 30, 1979 the General Manager advised the Organization that the Claimant "was not called for this service because he was not qualified to run Tamper, MAT-48." On February 23 of that yeas, the Organization advised the Carrier that it had a statement from the Claimant that he had been the Foreman on machines from who performed the work is question worked as "Foremen", not as the machine operator.
 Award Number 231
 Docket Number hb1-23698

 Page 2

 On April 19, 19790 the Carrier replied, stating that the senior "qualified" Foreman was called to work with the machine is question, and although Claimant may have been senior to the Foreman who was used, he had never worked as a Foremen over as automatic Tamper such as the MAT-48. Moreover, the (terrier assert Foreman, and his machinery experience has been with "smaller less complicated equipment." Thus, the Carrier concluded, the Claimant was not familiar with the operation of the machine in question, and was not qualified to supervise its operation.

 The question of the Employe's qualification is, of course, a fact question. Although the Organization Placed the Carrier on notice that it had a document concerning qualifications on machined; nonetheless, the Carrier distinguished that machinery from the type at issue in this case and. asserted - as a factual matter - that the Employe had not supervised machined as complex as the one is question.

 It appears to us that at that point, it was incumbent upon the Employe to further the question of qualification by shooing that he had, indeed, supervised the type was sufficient concerning the machinery which was used' Thus, we will dismiss the claim for a failure of proof.

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


That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved is 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

 That the claim be dismissed..

 Claim dismissed.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary

 A W A R D
NATIONAL RAILROAD AiOJS'D=BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ~ li~l~.~
      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of March 1982.