"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior Repairman E. Ilollock to perform overtime service (working with the B&B forces) on the National Dock Project at Jersey City, New .Jersey on March 15 and 16, 1992 (System Docket hIW-2566).

(2) .-1s a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Repairman E. Swarrow shall be allowed twenty-one (21) hours' pay at the repairman's time and one-half rate and seven and one-half (7'h) hours' pay at the repairman's double time rate."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This claim involves the application of Rule 17 of the parties' Agreement. It reads as follows;

" RULE 17 - PREFFRENCE FOR OVERTIME WORK

Employees will, if qualified and available, be given preference for overtime work, including calls, on work ordinarily and customarily performed by them during the course of their work week or day in the order of their seniority."

It is undisputed in the record that no Repairman position was directly assigned as part of the B&B forces working on the National Dock Project. Claimant had previously held such a position in 1991, but it was abolished several months prior to the claim dates. On the claim dates, Claimant was assigned to Tie Gang TK-144.

Given these circumstances, Rule 17 made it incumbent upon the Organization to prove, as one of the requisite elements of its claim, that the disputed work ordinarily and customarily fell within the jurisdiction of Claimant's work on Tie Gang TK-1.14. This is especially so since the Carrier maintained the work ordinarily and customarily accrued to repairmen assigned to the Easton Shop. Being an indispensable element of the claim, it was the Organization's burden to establish this fact via submission of evidence. On this record, the Organization has not done so.

While it is true there is a statement by Claimant in the record appearing to assert he performed work of the same character in the previous rive to six weeks, the statement is lacking in two important respects. First, it says only that Claimant repaired equipment used by "... the B&B and M&W Departments as well as the equipment used in my Gang for the past 5 to 6 weeks." The actual words used do not establish a connection with the National Dock Project. For us to conclude otherwise would require us to indulge in an unacceptable degree of speculation. Second, the statement sheds no light on the underlying circumstances. Even if we were to assume that Claimant worked on the National Docks Project in the immediately preceding weeks, the statement does not tell us whether he performed the work pursuant to Rule 17 or whether he was assigned because the employees who ordinarily and customarily did the work were unavailable for one reason or another.

.AWARD