Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28519
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28232
 90-3-88-3-12
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when, from April 14 through 25, 1986, the Carrier assigned a tractor to Crew 306 at Rosholt, South Dakota without recalling a furloughed sectionman to the crew (System File 8295 $1552W/80046-B-263).

 (2) The Agreement was further violated when, from May 15 through June 13, 1986, the Carrier assigned a tractor to Crew 310 at Enderlin, North Dakota without recalling a furloughed sectionman to the crew (System File 8296 1I149BP/800-46-B-261).

 (3) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, furloughed Sectionman D. M. Wieser shall be made whole for all straight time, overtime, vacation credits, fringe benefits and other rights lost as a result of the violation.

 (4) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (2) above, furloughed Sectionman W. D. Pritchert shall be made whole for all straight time, overtime, vacation credits, fringe benefits and other rights lost as a result of the violation."

 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 Organization alleges that between April 14, 1986, and April 25, 1986, the Carrier improperly assigned a tractor operator to Crew 306 at Rosholt, South Dakota, without recalling any furloughed sectionmen. The same tractor was allegedly assigned to Crew 310 from May 15, 1986, to June 13, 1986, at Enderlin, South Dakota. Again, the Organization contends that the Carrier should have recalled the senior furloughed Crew 310 sectionman.
 Form 1 Award No. 28519
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28232
 90-3-88-3-12

 The Carrier submits that the tractor operator position was continuously headquartered with Crew did not work with another gang for more than thirty days and so, the Carrier asserts, it was unnecessary to bulletin a tractor operator position on either Crew 306 or Crew 310. Also, the Carrier was unable to verify if the tractor actually worked with the crews on the dates cited by the Organization during the on-the-property appeal.

 This dispute is governed by Paragraph 4 of the January 1, 1985 Memorandum of Agreement which add


The Organization bears the burden of proving the underlying facts in its claim. To prove a violation of the January 1, 1985 Memorandum of Understanding, the Organization reduced below the minimum staffing levels listed in Appendix F or a yard crew was staffed with less than the normal force allotment. The record in this case does not show the level of forces on the two crews while the tractor operator performed service not contain any evidence that the level of forces on the crews dropped below the minimum contractual level during the periods covered by this Claim. In summary, the Board must deny this Claim for want of proof.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:,;~
 G ~~
 Nancy . 00ever - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of August 1990.