This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On December 9, 1986, Carrier forces replaced a broken axle on a spike driver machine. One of the employees who worked on the repair job was a Trackman. The organization contends that the Trackman performed work within the Work Equipment classification on that date, and that since Claimant has greater seniority as a work equipment mechanic he was entitled to be assigned to the job.
During the handling of this dispute on the property, Claimant submitted a statement indicating that he was present when the work was performed on December 9, 1986, and that the reason there was a need to assign someone to perform the repair was because the regular repair mechanic was on vacation at the time.
Carrier contends the work was accomplished by Work Equipment Mechanics, with some assistance by Machine Operator Davidson, who was temporarily assigned to operate the spike driver. Carrier's post conference denial specifically indicated that payroll records showed the regular repair mechanic was not on vacation as alleged by the Claimant.
Review of this record in its entirety leads this Board to conclude that the Organization has not met its burden of proving the elements of its claim. There is no citation necessary for the fundamental principle that the Board will not weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or make findings when there are disputes of fact. In the instant case, the factual predicate for the claim, that a Trackman was assigned to perform work equipment work because the regular repair mechanic was on vacation, was directly refuted by the Carrier during the handling of this dispute on the property. Because we are unable to determine whether a Trackman was assigned as an equipment mechanic, as alleged by the organization, or was simply assisting the regular mechanics as an incidental part of this regular assignment as asserted by the carrier, we must conclude that there is an irreconcilable conflict of fact that dictates denial of this Claim.