(18) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (9) above, Section Foreman R. A. Norwood shall be allowed twenty (20) hours' pay at his straight time rate."

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.

In this consolidated Claim, the Organization argues that the Carrier utilized supervisors to perform rail oiling work along various track locations. The nine (9) claims at bar each involve alleged Scope Rule violations in the performance of rail oiling work by different supervisors on different dates at various trackage locations. The extensive record includes the full on-property record of each instance with the named Claimants.

This Board has thoroughly reviewed the complete record. This work of oiling rail curves is clearly Scope protected. The disputed work belongs to the employees. The issue herein is whether the Organization has established in each of the nine separate instances the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate that the Carrier violated the Agreement.

In the instance of March 21, 1991, the Organization alleges that Roadmaster M. Gilcrease performed the work of oiling curves going north from Mile Post T-60, Lassater, Texas. The facts presented by the Organization are that the Roadmaster was observed doing so by Foreman Roger Oney at that point and date, as well as later that day oiling again at Mile Post T-61. Carrier's denial of that allegation is insufficient. There is a named observer of the oiling without more than a general denial that any violation occurred. The Claim of March 21, 1991 will be sustained.

95-3-92-3-771