Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28530
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27893
 90-3-87-3-428
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to establish a trackman-driver position on District Gang 150 headquartered at Belton, Missouri (System File B-2020/EMWC 86-7-21B).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Trackman-driver J. J. Henggeler shall be allowed pay at the trackman-driver rate for each work day beginning sixty (60) days retroactive from May 7, 1986 and continuing for so long as District Gang 150 uses a truck without an assigned trackman-driver."

 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 Organization charged that Carrier violated Rule 18(a)(4) of the controlling Agreement when District Gang #150 headquartered at Belton, Missouri was operating a gang truck without a trackman-driver. It also cited other Rules Carrier allegedly violated. Specifically, based upon Claimant's April 23, 1986 letter to the General Chairman wherein he asserted that a trackman-driver was not instant Claim. The Organization contended that said gang was assigned a motor vehicle (hy-rail truck) for the purpose of transporting men and materials in connection with the gang's work and, as such, pursuant to Rule 18(a)(4) Carrier was obligated to est Form 1 Award No. 28530
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27893
 90-3-87-3-428













Contrawise, Carrier contended that the vehicle used by District Gang ##150 was a patrol truck vehicle (hy-rail equipped pick up truck) and was used exclusively to transport men and not materials. Since its use was solely for track inspection, Carrier asserted that it was not required to establish a trackman-driver position. Furthermore, it argued that District Gang 11150 met the requirements of Rule 27, since the vehicle crew was composed of one (1) foreman and one (1) trackman.

 In considering this case, the Board concurs with Carrier's position. Under Rule 18(a)(4) when a motor vehicle for use on a highway is assigned to a gang in the Track Sub-department or in the System Rail Laying Sub-department for the purpose of transporting men and materials in connection with their work, Carrier is required to establish one or more positions in each gang.
 Form 1 Award No. 28530
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27893
 90-3-87-3-428

 There is no compelling evidence in this record that the vehicle was not a patrol type vehicle and no evidence that said vehicle was used to transport materials. If the Organization would have established that the vehicle was used on the highway and also transported materials, it would have developed the necessary defining contractual ingredients to sustain the Claim. Similarly, there was nothing wr since the patrol and inspection of tracks could be done by an Assistant Foreman and one or more trac patrol and inspection of tracks could be done by a foreman and/or an assistant foreman. The word "or" in this context allows for the sole assignment of an assistant foreman.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


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