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 employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.
Prior to the dates claimed, Claimant was an incumbent Chief Clerk, Position 201, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Chief Clerk position included training responsibilities. Effective June 26, 1989, Claimant was displaced by a more senior employee. Form 1 Award No. 30191 -`'
Thereafter, Carrier required claimant to train the senior employee in the Chief Clerk duties.
The organization's position is that Claimant was no longer the incumbent of a position "whose regular duties include training" after June 26, 1989. As a result, it maintains Claimant was entitled to the extra training pay.
The Carrier's position is that Claimant remained an incumbent of the Chief Clerk job until the senior employee became qualified.
Neither party provided specific evidence or prior precedent in support of its position. As a result, we are left with having to decide between diametrically opposed positional assertions. In such case, we must deny the Claim for failure to sustain the burden of proof. Our review of the on-property record, however, reveals an additional reason to support this result. The Claim comprises five separate Time Reports, signed by Claimant, each covering a portion of the dates claimed. Each of these reports identifies claimant as occupying Position Title "CH. CLK." and Job Number "201" after June 26, 1989. This, of course, is inconsistent with the Organization's position on the Claim and is congruent with the Carrier's position.