This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The initial claim dated February 24, 1995 asserted that a contractor came onto the Monon property, and " . . . raised and tamped ties located at Mile Post Q244.2 Bedford, Indiana, near 3rd Street, which is close to the GM Plant." The date specified in the claim for the alleged violation was January 4, 1995.
The Carrier responded on April 21, 1995 that it did not have track at Mile Post Q244.2 because all track at that location had been abandoned and removed. The Carrier further responded that if the work was performed at the GM Bedford Plant at Mile Post Q245.2, the Carrier's records showed that Claimants D. E. Baxter and A. J. Mathis installed a connection at that location on December 12,1994. Further, according to the Carrier, "CSX Transportation has no knowledge of any surfacing work performed, nor have they authorized any such work."
On June 16, 1995, the Organization stated that the original mile post was incorrectly cited as the location of the disputed work and that the correct mile post was Mile Post Q245.2. With respect to the work performed on December 12, 1994 by Claimants Baxter and Mathis, the Organization stated that on that date Claimants Baxter and Mathis went to make a connection but did not do so ". . . because the people that were to help make this connection had the wrong angle bars so the work was not done that day." However, the Organization stated that it was not making a claim for that work, but "[wje are claiming the 8 hours that the contractor worked raising ties and surfacing and tamping ties."
By letter dated August 14, 1995, the Carrier responded that"... the Carrier is not aware of any surfacing work performed at this location on the date cited by you and you have failed to show otherwise."
By letter dated January 19, 1996, the Carrier attached a March 12, 1995 statement from Roadmaster J. G. Reynolds that "[t]o my knowledge no contractor has Form 1 Award No. 35836
been authorized nor have I received a bill from a contractor for working on any CSX track at this location or anywhere in the area."
By letter dated February 24,1996, the Organization submitted a statement from Signal Maintainer J. E. Flick that "[oln 1-4-951 was at Bedford at MP245.2 and saw a contractor working on CSX track that goes into the foundry at Bedford." The Organization emphasized that the date in question was January 4, 1995.
At best, in terms of evidence, the record discloses the assertion in accord with Flick's statement that "[oln 1-4-951 was at Bedford at MP245.2 and saw a contractor working on CSX track that goes into the foundry at Bedford." Given the Carrier's denials that a contractor performed work at or near that location, under the circumstances, the Organization's factual demonstration is insufficient for the Board to find that a contractor performed scope covered work in violation of the Agreement.
In light of that finding, the Carrier's argument that the dispute was not properly progressed to the Board is moot.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.