(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:(

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it abolished the position of truck driver (Dump Truck No. W-796) on January 24, 1980 and assigned other employes to p MofW 152-886).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Truck Driver T. Espinoza shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at the truck driver's rate in addition to what he was paid for each work day beginning January 24, 1980 and continuing until he is returned to the above-mentioned position."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Thomas Espinoza, Claimant, holds seniority rights as a
 Truck Driver, Class No. 25, as of .1955. Since 1979 Claimant drove dump truck No. W-796 on the M January 24, 1980, Claimant's position was abolished and he was reassigned to another truck driver's position on the Oakland Roadmaster's district, at the same rate of pay. Thereafter. Truck No. W-796 was assigned to a two-man crew in the System Work Equipment Sub-Department operating the Gradall 154 machine utilized to clean drain ditches and right-of-way cuts on the Martinez Roadma.ster's District.

 On April 7, 1980, the Organization filed a claim on Espinoza's behalf for pay at the applicable 1980 and continuing until Claimant is returned to his former position on the Martinez Roadmaster's District. Subsequently the claim was modified to demand pay beginning January 24, 1980. Said claim is based upon the alleged violation of certain rules of the Agreement when Truck No. W-796 was driven by employes who hold no seniority rights as Truck Driver, Class No. 25.

 The Carrier raises a n=ber of procedural objection to the claim. However, there is no need to pass upon the validity of such objection since in view of the Board the claim must be denied on its merits.

 The Carrier in its submission states that Truck No. W-796 was used on occasion to haul various track materials for use by other track forces within the Martinez Roadmaster's District, however, this was during the period when the truck was assigned to the System Work Equipment Sub-Department.

 This Board has held in a long line of decisions that it does not possess the authority to restore positions and must be guided accordingly in this case.
                      Docket Number MW-24445


It is well settled by a large number of our awards that the burden of proof establishing grounds for a claim rest with the petitioner. A review of the entire record in this case shows that the petitioner has not met that burden. The Organization did submit six letters in support of this claim.. Unfortunately these letters were not sufficient to meet the burden of proof. On this basis the claim must be denied.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS2MENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        AT"EST: Acting Eyecutive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


By /::: ..r.. _ ;.,,_,. ~C i J

      I Rosemarie'Brasch'- Administrative Assistant


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1983.


                                                        v