A detailed review by this Board finds the following. The organization argues that on February 28, March 3, 5, 6, 18 and 20, 1991, the Carrier utilized two different employees from the Pittsburgh District to perform vehicle operator work on the Youngstown District for which they possessed no seniority. In the on property review of the incidents the Organization alleges movement from the Pittsburgh District to M.P. 37.5 - M.P. 38 on the Ft. Wayne to Pittsburgh main line, or states movement to a derailment within the Youngstown Seniority District.
The supporting evidence from the Organization includes two letters from a Pittsburgh District employee and a Foreman. The Foreman makes reference to the movement of materials on June 20 and 24, 1991, from New Galilee in the Youngstown District, rather than from Pitcairn. He also discusses material transfers on Julv 29, 1991. The other employee's full statement includes only one relevant statement that "material was not transpored (sic) from Conway" (emphasis in original). That statement is apparently in reference to February 28, March 3 and March 5, 1991, and provides no insight as to the type of materials or work performed.
The Carrier denies violation of the Agreement in that the transfer of material from Conway to the derailment was proper. It continues to argue that the work "was strictly material management" and therefore movement of materials from Conway Yard to a derailment within the Youngstown district and the return of scrap was permissible. The Carrier argues that the two vehicle operators performed no work that belonged to the Claimant.
In our review of Rules 4, 17 and Appendix C within the circumstances and facts herein before this Board, we find scant evidence for a conclusion. We have reviewed the seniority district maps and find a lack of clarity in delineating the disputed areas. There is no record provided by the Organization to illuminate this Claim. The Organization's allegations were refuted. The evidence relates to letters from a Foreman on dates not in dispute and from an employee with an unsubstantiated assertion that the materials on three of the disputed days did not come from Conway, without further information such as where the materials came from or if this was movement across seniority districts. The Organization cannot meet its burden of proof with this record. The Carrier's assertion that this work does not belong to the Youngstown district was never clearly refuted. Accordingly, the Claim is denied for lack of proof.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.