this Di% isiun of the Adju5tntent L3uard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Prior to the date of this dispute, the Claimant, holding seniority in the Track Subdepartment, %%as furloughed from the Pensacola Subdivision. Thereafter, he was allo%ved work on the Mobile Subdivision, v% here he worked for several months, at which time the Carrier abolished the gang to %% hich he %vas assigned.
At the time of the gang abolishment in 1990, the Claimant states he and three other employees v%ere ad% ised by their Foreman that the Roadmaster had advised that the "cut-off forms" were unavailable, but that the employees should sign a "piece of yellow legal pad." According to the Claimant, the Foreman stated this would be "forwarded to the office," in place of cut-off forms, which are required if employees are to retain recall rights. This was attested to by a written statement signed by the Claimant and four other employees (including the Foreman).
On January 21, 1991, a Mobile Division Tie Gang was established. .fin employee junior to the Claimant, who had been cut off at the same time as the Claimant, was recalled for this newly created Tie Gang. Under Rule 22(b) the Organization argues that the Carrier improperly failed to recall the Claimant.
The Carrier denied the claim by stating (a) the Claimant failed to complete the necessary cut-off form; (b) the recalled junior employee had done so; and O the Roadmaster denied that he had ever authorized the use of the yellow legal pad in place of the usual procedure.
The Carrier urges that this varying allegation of fact is sufficient to require the Board to dismiss the claim, based on an irreconcilable conflict as to what occurred. There is ample precedent for this position, assuming the absence of any additional facts. The Carrier, however, must be faulted on two bases. In its response during the claim handling procedure, the Carrier stated:
The record shoes, ho%% es er, no copy of such -handwritten statement." Certainly, it *,*as the obligation of the Carrier to pro% ide such statement to support its otherwise undocumented contention. In addition, even if the Carrier's characterization of the Roadmaster's *ieiv is accepted, it simply states "the employees" (including the Claimant") did sign cut-off forms, %~hich ,,,ould have qualified the Claimant for recall.
Second, the Carrier states that the recalled employee signed a cut-off form, but again it provided no proof of this by producing a copy of the form.
On this basis. the Board is clearly entitled to accept the Claimant's version, particularly in vie%,* of the Foreman's signature on the written statement submitted by the Claimant and the other employees.
In sum, if the Carrier makes an affirmative defense, it is obligated to provide more than a mere allegation without documentation. Because the Claimant's seniority was disregarded, the Board must sustain the claim.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.