The Organization alleges a violation of the Scope Rule when Carrier allowed outsiders to transfer the contents of one box car to another at its facility in Cumberland, Maryland, on June 1989.

From the parties' handling of the matter on the property, the pivotal issues are whether the facility in question is a store house or freight house and whether the employees have customarily, traditionally and historically performed the kind of work in question.

The on-property record in this matter consists of only four documents: the Claim and one appeal by the Organization together with two denials by the Carrier. There is no supporting evidence included by either party. As a result, the record confronting us is one of assertion countered by opposing assertion. The Organization asserts the facility in question is part of a store house and that its members have exclusively performed the kind of work in dispute. The Carrier asserts a locomotive shop is involved and that the work is not exclusive to any craft. We note from the record that the Claim, itself, refers to the facility in question as the "Diesel Shop."

In disputes of this nature, it is well settled that the Organization has the burden of proving, by submission of probative evidence, that the Carrier has violated the parties' Agreement. On the record before us, we find that the organization has not satisfied this burden. Accordingly, the Claim must be denied.

A W A R D