(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE : (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 STATEZ-1ENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated rhea Machine Operator Leroy Stroman was not called to perform overtime service on his assigned position (Ballast Regulator, Section Force 8565) on June 15, 1979 and the Carrier instead called and used a junior employe (C. Nichols) assigned to Section Force 8565 for such service (System File C-4(36)-IS/12-27(79-51) RS).

 (2) Machine Operator Leroy Stromaa be allowed tea (10) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to is Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was regularly assigned to the position of ballast
 regulator, with rest days of Friday and Saturday. On
 Friday, June 15, 1979 it was necessary for Carrier to use the ballast regulator
 which Claimant nox7ral.ly operated from Monday through Thursday. Carrier did not
 use Claimant for the rock but instead used Trackman Nichols., who was qualified
 to operate the equipment., for the tea hours of overtime rock.

 Claimant maintains that he was not asked to perform the overtime work, which he was available for and willing to perform. Carrier's failure to assign Claimant to the work on the Friday was a clear violation of the Agreement, and in particular Rules 6, 8 and 28, according to Petitioner.

 The Carrier points out that its version of the events is reliable and its assignment of the work to the junior employe was correct under the circ=staaces; those circumstances were that Claimant was asked by his Foreman to work the overtime a
This dispute turns on the factual issue of whether or not the Claimant was offered the overtime that there is clearly a sharp conflict between the events as perceived by Claimant and the Foreman. There is no question but that Claimant was entitled to the work, if he chose to accept the assignment, as provided by the Rules. Since the conflict in testimony goes to the heart of this dispute, the Board cannot make a determination on the merits without the facts being clearly before it. It has long bee posture, cannot resolve conflicts in evidence. We have no alternative but to dismiss the Claim.

Award Number 2406'J ~

Docket Number MW-24089


Page 2

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employee 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 Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Claim dismissed.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 NATIOfAL RAILROAD ADvTt75MMIT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 By / "`1 ~s9~
 Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1982.