Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 31460
 Docket No. M',X-32060
 96-3-9=-3-440

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert Richter when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
                  Brotherhood that:


          (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior employes E. Bindert, J. A. Chavez and W.C. Preciado to fill temporary vacancies during the period senior employe E. D. Perry was in furloughed status and the Carrier failed to recall or assign him to fill said vacancies (Carrier's File MofW 93-139 SPW).


          (2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, claimant 3. D. Perry shall be compensated %. . . for eight (8) hours a day for each work day sixty (60) days retroactive from the date o: this claim, as well as any overtime worked by the junior employes during the sixty (60) days.'"


FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjust-a=nt Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:


The carrier or carriers and the e:.-loyee or employees i_:olved in this dispute are respectively carr-=r and employee wit'--in the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as ap_roved June 21, 1934.


This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdictic= over the dispute involved herein.


Parties to said dispute waived ric=t of appearance at "_aring thereon.

Form 1 Award No. 31460
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-32060
 96-3-94-3-440

The Carrier argues this claim should be barred from handling by the Board because it was not timely filed on the property. The Carrier did not take this position in its handling of the claim on the property. In accordance with the rules of the Board we cannot consider new arguments, ergo, the Carrier's position will not be considered.


The Organization filed the initial claim with the Carrier on August 10, 1993, alleging a violation of the Agreement and claiming 60 days pay for the Claimant. The argument of the Organization is that junior employees were permitted to work temporary jobs while the Claimant was furloughed.


The record in this case is somewhat confusing. Apparently the Claimant was recalled to work on June 21, 1993. When the alleged violation of the Agreement occurred, or what Rule was violated is unclear.


The Carrier argued the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of the Agreement.


The Carrier's position is well taken. The Organization has failed to meet its burden. There is no proof the Agreement was violated.


                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                          NATION:-,L RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By C=der of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of April 1996.