Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29071
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28723
 91-3-89-3-154
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Cor
 poration (Conrail):

 On behalf of D. L. Allender for 16 hours pay at his punitive rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly the Scope Rule and Rule 4-B, when it allowed or permitted Signal Supervisors t December 14 and 15, 1987." Carrier file SD-2482.

 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 charges that Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement, particularly the Scope Assistant Supervisor performed protected work on December 14, 1987, and the same Supervisor performed protected work on December 15, 1987. On December 14, 1987, the Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor mounted a box to be used to house signal equipment on the side of the relay house at Solan Interlocking and on December 15, 1987, the Supervisor made signal circuit changes to add a push-button for the movement of trains. The Organization maintains that since Claimant who was on vacation at the time was available for this work, Carrier was obligated to inquire of him whether he wished to perform it. Specifically, it contends that it w Division for employees to take calls while on vacation.
 Form 1 Award No. 29071
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28723
 91-3-89-3-154

 Carrier contends that since Claimant was on vacation from December 14 - 18, 1987; and did not advise management of his availability for work during this period, it was under no obligation to contact him. More pointedly, it asserts that employees observing paid vacation periods were not considered as being available for work.

 In considering this dispute, the Board concurs with Carrier's position. Based on the record deve by the parties was whether Carrier was obligated to contact Claimant to determine whether he was ava or whether Claimant was obligated to apprise Carrier of his availability for overtime work while on vacation. Since the Organization as the moving party has the burden of proving all aspects of its claim, including here, its ccntention of a past practic proof that such a practice existed, the Board must find for Carrier on this question. The Organization's Exhibit No. 9 attached to its Submission was not exchanged on the property and thus as new evidence is not properly before us. Carrier also has raised in its Submission new arguments such as its contention that vacation entitlement is governed by the provisions of the December 14, 1941 National Vacation Agreement. This material is also not properly before us. Upon the evidence, there is no proof that Carrier was obligated to ask Claimant whether he was available to perform overtime work while on vacation and accordingly, no justification to award him the punitive rate of compensation requested. We find compensating Claimant.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of December 1991.