Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28470
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27149
 90-3-86-3-215
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) ( - Northeast Corridor

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to permit Trackman M. Green to displace a junior trackman at Hunter Yard, Newark, New Jersey on November 19, 1984 (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-1188).

 (2) The claimant shall be allowed ten (10) hours of pay at his straight time rate."

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 The Claimant established and holds seniority as a trackman. Effective November 13, 1984, Claiman Gang Z-182 on the Panel Renewal System. Shortly thereafter, on November 15, 1984, Gang Z-182 was abolished. Inasmuch as the abolishment notice for that gang had already been posted on November 6, 1984, Claimant's name was not on the abolishment notice.

 On Monday, November 19, 1984, Claimant reported to Carrier's Hunter Yard in Newark, New Jersey, and attempted to displace an employee in the Continuous Welded Rail Unit he was not permitted to exercise his seniority on that date. The displacement was allowed on the following date, November 20, 1984.
 Form 1 Award No. 28470
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27149
 90-3-86-3-215

 The instant Claim is for ten (10) hours' pay for November 19, 1984. The Organization contends that Rule 18 was violated when the attempted displacement on Novembr 19, 1 part as follows:





The Organization argues that the foregoing Rule specifically stipulates that employees affected ten (10) days after the effective date of the reduction, to exercise seniority to displace junior employees. Claimant in the instant case was entitled to displace a junior employee as long as he did so within the requisite ten (10) day time period, the Organization maintains, and therefore Carrier's failure and/or refusal to allow Claimant to exercise his seniority on November 19, 1984, was clearly in violation of Rule 18.

 Carrier argues that it was incumbent upon Claimant to present his November 13, 1984 displacement slip to show that he had bumped into Gang Z-182 and had a right to displace after its abolishment. It is a routine and wellestablished requirement o a junior employee must first present some evidence that he possesses a displacement right before the In the absence of any evidence that Claimant had a bump right on November 19, 1984, Carrier contends that the Supervisor's decision against allowing the displacement was reasonable and consistent with routine displacement procedures.

 The Board notes that both the Organization and the Carrier have included in their submissions to which were not advanced by either party during the handling of this dispute on the property. These have not been considered by this Board consistent with past Awards (see, e.g., Third Division Awards 20178, 20841, 21463, and 22054).

 Thus, the issue as it was narrowly framed by the parties on the property is whether the Agreemen that there has been a well-established practice on the property to permit displacement only where th displacement right. Such is not contradicted by the Organization in the record before the Board. As Fourth Division Awards 3379, 3482). Our review of the record shows that this
 Form 1 Award No. 28470
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27149
 90-3-86-3-215

 burden has not been met. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that Carrier requires some sort of "paper trail" to accompany employees who seek to displace junior employees. Gi which seniority rights are exercised, and the geographical distances involved, such a requirement can hardly be deemed unreasonable. Claimant's failure to produce a displacement slip on November 19, 1984, in accordance with those procedures dictates the c





                            By Order of Third Division


      Attest: icy J ~ Vprf - Executive Secretary


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of August 1990.