(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Fmployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to permit Repairman T. R. Anders, Jr. to displace a junior repairman on December 1, 1983 (System Docket CR-629).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Repairman T. R. Anders, Jr. shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at his straight time rate."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant established and holds seniority as a Main
 tenance of Way Repairman in the Carrier's Track Sub
 department. On December l., 1983, the Claimant was displaced by a senior
 employe prior to the beginning of his shift. The Claimant's assignment was
 Monday through Friday, with a 7:30 A.M. starting time. On the day in question
 the Claimant arrived late to work and after discovering that he had been
 bumped he attempted to displace a junior employe at 7:45 A.M. This exercise
 of seniority rights by the Claimant was not permitted by the Carrier and the
 Claimant did not work on December 1, 1983. On the following work day the
 Claimant exercised seniority and displaced a junior employe.

 On December 9, 1983, the Organization filed a Claim on behalf of the Claimant on the grounds that the Carrier was in violation of Rules 4 and 40 of the applicable Agreement. The prior Rule deals, in pertinent part, with seniority and the latter Rule deals with discrimination.

 The only issue at bar is whether the Agreement permits the Carrier to deny an employe's displacement rights if the employe attempts to exercise such rights after arriving late for work. There is no dispute of fact that the Claimant arrived at work to cover his assignment five (5) minutes after starting time. The Board can find nothing in the language of the Agreement which does not permit supervision to deny displacement rights if the employe attempting to exercise these rights is late for work. Rule 4 is silent on this question. On the other hand, the Carrier argues that there has been a well established practice on the property to permit displacement only prior to the starting time of a given tour of duty. Such is not contradicted by the Claimant in the record before the Board by means of any substantial evidence showing. Substantial evidence has been defined as such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Consol. Ed. Co. vs Labor Board 305 U.S. 197, 229). The Board also cannot find evidence in the record to
                        Docket Number MW-26460


discrimination. As moving party the burden of proof in the instant case lies
 with the Claimant (Second Division Awards 5526, 6054; Fourth Division Awards
 3379, 3482). Study of the record shows that this burden has not been met.
 The Claim cannot, therefore, be sustained.

        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 ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attes
        Nancy '.~ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of March 1987.