Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28847
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28622
 91-3-88-3-466
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly The Chesapeake and ( Ohio Railway Company)

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Terminal Engineer J. Bipus, Roadmaster T. Sullivan and Project Engineer J. Erickson to perform track work at Walbridge, Ohio from October 5 through November 6, 1987 (System File C-TC-4039/12(88-180).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, furloughed Trackman L. Dannenberger, F. Fisher, J. Lockhart, R. Timpe, D. Blankenship, T. Blink, P. Main, R. Humes, A. Adams, L. Gloria, A. Kortez, Jr. and M. Rayden shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal proportionate share of the two hundred forty (240) man-hours of track work expended by the supervisors mentioned in Part
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.

 This dispute involves the alleged performance of trackman's work by three Supervisors on a regular basis in violation of the Agreement. The Organization argues that from October 5, 1987 through November 6, 1987, for "eight (8) hours or more" each day they performed work reserved to the Maintenance of Way employees under the Scope of the Agreement and Rule 35 1/2. Claim is made only for October 26 through November 6, 1987.

 A careful review of the facts fails to firmly establish a basis for this Board to find in favor of the Organization. An analysis provides support for the assertion that Supervisors performed some instructional/supporting
 Form 1 Award No. 28847
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28622
 91-3-88-3-466

 trackmen's work. The Carrier does not deny that for instructional purposes related to assuring t admitted work was in violation of the Agreement. The photographs do not demonstrate that Supervisors work at the Union Street project. Statements from the Supervisors adamantly deny the allegations.

 The burden of proof rests with the Organization. We find insufficient probative evidence that th trackman's work at the Union Street project, Walbridge, Ohio, on the dates of the Claim. We find no contract language prohibiting Supervisors from the actions demonstrated herein. This is not to deny that track sub-department work, which is the subject of this dispute, accrues to the employees, only that it has not been shown that Supervisory personnel were involved in doing such work in a manner precluded by practice or Agreement. It has not been demonstrated by the Organization that the Carrier has violated the Agreement.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1991.