Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28338
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27366
90-3-86-3-591
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The Agreement was violated when, on May 31 and June 3, 1985, respectively, Foreman Richard Bowman operated the tamper and ballast regulator on Gang 501 (System File B-1586-2/EMWC 85-9-30).

(2) The Agreement was also violated when the Carrier failed to bulletin the truck driver's position on Gang 501 and instead assigned Foreman Richard Bowman or Machine Operator Dale Haire to operate the truck on a regular daily basis beginnin
(3) Mr. J. E. Rhodes shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered as a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and (2) hereof."

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.



The thrust of this Claim concerns Foremen doing machine operators work and driving a gang truck. On July 9, 1985, the Organization filed a Claim contending that a Foreman operated a machine on several dates and had driven a gang truck on several occasions. Carrier's Superintendent immediately asked that the Organi of the alleged violations so that he could investigate the matter.
Form 1 Award No. 28338
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27366
90-3-86-3-591





After this response was received the Superintendent declined the Claim stating:



Thereafter, the matter was appealed, but the Organization never submitted proof in support of it Organization stated that it could not agree with the declination, however, that is all that was stated. At that time, or later, it never submitted evidence in. support of its the facts.

The burden is on the party making a claim, that its Agreement is violated, to make a showing in support thereof. Allegation, without more, is not proof, nor can it be considered as adequate support for this Claim that the Foreman was doing work which should have been assigned to Claimant.






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest
        Nancy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1990.