(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned

or otherwise permitted Track Foreman J. Bell to perform

trackman's work while assigned on Force 5GB2 at New Port

News, Virginia from May 2 through 29, 1992 instead of

recalling and assigning furloughed Trackman J. Chamblee

to perform said work [System File C-TC-5383/12(92-1018)

COS]

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Mr. J. Chamblee shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered [eight (8) hours per day plus any overtime), at the trackman's straight time and/or time and one-half rate, for the total number of man-hours expended by Foreman Bell in performing the trackman's work from May 2 through 29, 1992."

Foreman was assigned to perform Trackman's work from May 2 through May 29, 1992.

Support for the claim is based upon a February 20, 1986 Agreement and a Letter of Interpretation dated September 9, 1987, the latter of which reads as follows:

"This refers to our conference of September 9, 1987, in which we discussed the application of that portion o= the Memorandum Agreement of February 20, 1986, pertaini-^.= to Track Foremen and B&B Foremen participating in work e= their forces.

The February 20, 1986 Agreement reads, in part, aS follows:

`Foremen will participate in the work of the force to which they are assigned to the extent that this does not conflict with their foreman duties: however, they will continue to have complete control of their force.'

It is not the intent of the foregoing that the Foremen replace Trackmen or B&B Mechanics. They are t= only assist in unusual situations or sporadically whet needed, it being the intent of the parties that employee= assigned Foremen positions will be productive when net otherwise engaged in the performance of their Foreman

duties.

If the foregoing correctly reflects Our understanding of this matter will you please indicate below."

The Organization has the burden to prove that the ,rack Foreman performed Trackman's work in violation of the Februa=; 20, 1986 Agreement and its 1987 interpretation. In order to preva:_ the organization must present sufficient proof of a violatic-. On January 14, 1993 the Organization presented a "Statement of -=cts" dated December 28, 1992 from the Track Foreman. The Statement Shows the Track Foreman was on vacation from May 4 through Fay 8 inclusive. In the rest of the statement the Foreman relate= that while performing Foreman's duties he was also required to perform Trackman's work. The statement is general in nature and doss not specify what work was done on the claim dates in this case.

Both parties to the dispute submitted Awards in supp==:: of their position. In this particular case a review of the _=cord shows the Organization failed to meet its burden by prc--ding

sufficient evidence to show a violation of the Agreement. The Foreman's statement, which was submitted some seven months after the alleged violation, is non-specific except for the vacation dates.

AWARD