(a) I, Arthur Ferland, claim eight (8) hours pay on Position MC-11 for Friday, January 9, 1998.

due to the ice storm. E. R. Binette was called in Friday, January 9,

1998 to do the work of my assignment on MC-11:"

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.

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

At the relevant time, the Claimant was a Transportation Service Representative holding Position MC-11 at Waterville, Maine. On January 8,1998, MC-11 was canceled due to an ice storm. On January 9,1998, E. R. Binette was called into work. According

to the Carrier, Binette worked assignment MC-10 when the incumbent was unable to work due to the ice storm. The Claimant asserts that Binette worked assignment MC-11 ("E. R. Binette was called in Friday, January 9, 1998 to the work of my assignment on Mc 11").

There is an obvious factual dispute. The Organization claims that Binetteworked the Claimant's assignment MC-11 while the Carrier asserts that Binette worked assignment MC-10. The Organization counters in argument that it is irrelevant whether Binette worked MC-10 or MC-11 and asserts that the Claimant should have been called. But the burden is on the Organization to demonstrate sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of the Agreement. Based on the sparse facts developed in this record, we are unable to ascertain whether Binette worked MC-10 or MC-11 and, if he worked MC-10, the consequences of his performing the work of that position as opposed to working the Claimant's MC-11 position. Without more, we are unable to find that the Organization has met its burden. This claim must fail for lack of factual support.