utilized. This dispute concerns the Organization's contention that the scarifier was operated for a period of more than 30 days and that the Carrier was in Rule violation by its failure to bulletin the position. The Carrier, conceding use of the scarifier, argues that the Organization failed to prove that it was in operation in excess of the 30-day period which would require the position to be bulletined.

Review of the claim handling procedure is of insufficient help to the Board to fashion a resolution.

The August 29,1997 claim states that the scarifier was in operation with Gang TP-03 in District 12 from "July 7,1997, and continuing." The initial Carrier response (a) identified the scarifier as BNX 42-0075 and stated it "was placed on bulletin BU9713 dated September 15, 1997," and (b) stated that payroll records do not find that [the employee identified by the Organization] operated this Scarifier during the claim period."

The only September 15,1997 bulletin provided in the record was for a scarifier in another seniority district, with a report date of October 13, 1997. This obviously does not address the period and location covered by the claim.

As to operation of the scarifier by the employee identified by the Organization, this was reviewed in conference. According to the Organization, the Carrier conceded the employee "operated the Group 3 machine [scarifier) only from July 7, through August 6," without reference to the period thereafter. The Carrier's version of the review was that payroll records showed the employee working on "three distinct Group 3/4 jobs" during July-August, no one of which was for more than 30 days.

Two statements provided by the Organization were not as definitive as the Organization suggests. One was from the employee assigned to the scarifier, explaining how he was allegedly compensated therefor, and stating, "I do not recall the exact dates." The other, from another employee on Gang TP-03, states, "I don't remember the dates, but I believe July 7,1977 through late September 1997 would be accurate." The first statement was undated, and the second was dated two years after the event.

As is evident from the above, there is no means provided for the Board to reconcile the various assertions, and the matter must therefore be dismissed. This is in contrast to the record provided in Third Division Award 36218, the reasoning in which is incorporated herein by reference.

AWARD