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

When this case arose in March 1995, the Claimant was a furloughed Pittsburgh Division Track Foreman who also held a seniority date as a Class 2 Machine Operator. This case presents the claim that the Carrier violated Rule 1 - Seniority Classes, Rule 3 - Selection of Positions and Rule 4 - Seniority of the controlling Agreement(s), whe it utilized S. Aftanas, a regularly assigned B&B Structural Welder, to run a Class 2 bulldozer on certain dates in March 1995, commencing on March 20, 1995. The Organization avers that the Carrier was contractually obligated instead to recall the Claimant, who had been furloughed April 24, 1995, to perform the subject work.

In presenting the claim on the property, the Organization asserted but did not prove that Aftanas operated the bulldozer "continuously" on and after March 20,1995. In handling on the property the Carrier averred that "the duration of the work did not require or warrant advertisement of a Machine Operator" and denied the claim citing Rule 1- Scope, Paragraph 4 and Rule 19 - Assignment to Higher or Lower Rated Positions. Aside from bare contradicted assertions that the "work involved was performed on a regular basis . . . over a two or three week period," the Organization offered no probative evidence of what work was actually performed or how long it was performed and failed generally to support its claim of a "continuing violation"in this case. See Third Division Awards 14450 and 26328.

So far as we can determine from the available record evidence, in addition to patching holes in the various bridge walls, cleaning debris from the bridges and performing occasional traffic control duties on March 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1995, in connection with the Mon Line Bridge Clearance Project, Aftanas also operated the bulldozer for a portion of each of those four days and then observed his rest day on March 24,1995. In its interpretation and application of Paragraph 4 of the Scope Rule, Special Board of Adjustment No. 1016 determined in Award 24 that "the Scope Rule grants Carrier the right to assign employees across classification lines" and the first sentence of Rule 19 plainly states: "An employee may be temporarily assigned to different classes of work within the range of his ability." From all that appears in this record, Aftanas was properly compensated for temporary cross-classification service, in accordance with Rule 19 and the fourth paragraph of the BMWE Scope Rule. We find no persuasive evidence that the Claimant's seniority or recall rights were violated in the process and his claim, therefore, must be denied.

AWARD