(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to assign all of the TCOM center section positions (twenty-two (22)] agreed to by the parties within the January 22, 1988 TCOM Agreement beginning June 17, 1991 and continuing (System Docket MW-2115).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the Claimants* listed below shall each be compensated, at their respective and applicable rates of pay, for all wage loss suffered during the period in question and they shall each receive credit for benefits as a result thereof.

H. E. Jones O. Jarrell

R. A. Ramisier J. P. Sickora

H. R. Lyon R. E. Kirlin

W. C. Johnson T. L. Chalfont

D. B. Murray 0. H. Powell

T. A. Garrison D. L. Durham

L. Briones T. E. Thacker

D. L. Shelly C. W. Perkins, Jr.

G. Stralko G. N. Ellis

E. L. Swain R. C. Dimmerling"

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.

The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf c_ the aforementioned furloughed Claimants when on June 17, 199=, the Carrier assigned four employees "who had no contractual rich=^ to replace crossties in the hump yard at Conway, Pennsylvania. The Organization argues that the Claimants, who held seniority within their respective classes as members of the Tie Change Out M==Nine (TCOM) were fully qualified and readily available to perform the work in question.

The carrier denied the claim because it alleged that t=a work at issue was determined to have been a small tie change-c_= job which required the use of the intermediate tie replacement -,=chine which can be operated independently of the center section := the TCOM. The Carrier argues that when using the intermediac_ tie exchange machine, it only has to use one Foreman and two Operators and not an entire crew as is needed when it uses the TCOM.

This Board has reviewed the evidence and we find that the Organization failed to meet its burden of proof that the Crier violated the Agreement when it assigned the employees to r=-ilace the crossties.

The record reveals that the Carrier used the senior avai=able TCOM employees to complete the tie change-out project. The Organization has not proven that the Carrier violated any =_ a or the TCOM Agreement and there has been no demonstration t=c the Carrier was required to assign 22 employees to a project which apparently only required three.

It is fundamental that in rules cases the Organizatic- --ears the burden of proof. In this case, it has not met that '---.=den. Therefore, the claim must be denied.

AWARD