Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27855
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27594
 89-3-87-3-37
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Delaware and Hudson Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the N&W Protective Agreement dated March 21, 1966, as adopted on the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, when it failed or refused to give the required five (5) day advance notice of the actual date of abolishment and arbitrarily and capriciously abolished the TelegrapherTowerman position at Hudson
2. As a result of the aforesaid violation Carrier shall now be required to compensate Telegrapher V. D. Slamas one (1) day's pay at the pro rata rate for the following dates November 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1981.

 3. Carrier shall further be required to compensate Claimant V. D. Slamas interest in the amount of 18 per cent compounded annually on the anniversary date of this claim for all monies in Item 2 supra."

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

By notice of July 20, 1981, Claimant was notified of the abolishment of his Telegrapher/Towerman pos abolished, the Organisation filed Claim alleging Carrier failure to give the required five (5) day advance notice as per Section Five (5), Paragraph (f) of the July 1, 1968 (N&W) Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 27855
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27594
 89-3-87-3-37

 The Carrier denied any Agreement violation. It argued that there had been a severe decline in business and it had followed the Agreement. Section 2(b) required advance notice of force reduction and such notice had been given. It denied that an additional five day advance notice on top of the July 20, 1981, notice was required.

 In this contract interpretation case the Board has searched the record on the property for argument and evidence necessary to support the Organization's interpretation. It has long been held that the weight of the evidence for any Claim is the responsibility of the moving party (Third Division Award 24965). There is no evidence in the record to support the Organization's interpretation of the Agreement. The burden of proof cannot be met by assertion. After a thorough review of all issues raised by the parties on the property and in their _ex parte Submissions, the Board finds that the Claim must be denied. The Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: /~y
 Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1989.