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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Claimants D. F. LeFevre, P. M. Cantu, T. B. Smith and N. D. Pilster established and held seniority on the Idaho Division in the Track Subdepartment as Group 17 Sectionmen. Claimant T. J. Wheeler established and held seniority on the Idaho Division in the Track Subdepartment as a Group 28 Sectionman Truck Driver. During the claim period, the Claimants were furloughed or in the process of returning to work following a period of furlough.
The instant dispute arose when the Carrier allegedly used regularly assigned Extra Gang 6082 employees to perform deferred track maintenance and repairs at the Pocatello Yards in Pocatello, Idaho, instead of using the Claimants. According to the Organization, the work consisted of "installing new ties, gauging, surfacing, lining track and other related track maintenance work customarily and traditionally assigned to Group 17 Sectionmen and Group 28 Truck Drivers on the Idaho Division."
The facts underlying this case are virtually identical to those addressed by the Board in Third Division Award 36542. In that case, the Board found evidence that the disputed work involved renewing ties, and that the Organization failed to provide any specific details regarding the track maintenance or other duties allegedly performed by Extra Gang 6602. Furthermore, the Organization did not prove that tie renewal work was exclusive to extra gangs or section gangs.
The Board makes similar findings here regarding the nature of the work and the issue of exclusivity. Although details regarding the exact work performed in this case are not as clear, both parties mention tie renewal work in their Submissions. As stated innumerable times by many priorAwards, the Organization bears the burden of proving the merits of its case by presenting substantial evidence in support of its position. Moreover, many Third Division Awards have held that in cases such as this, where the employees of one group or subdepartment within a craft assert a superior right to that Form 1 Award No. 36543
work over employees of another group or subdepartment within the same craft, that the Organization is faced with an even weightier burden. The Board agrees.
Regarding the question of whether the Claimants were entitled to the disputed work, as the Board stated in Award 36542, the Organization did not prove here that on the claim dates Extra Gang 6082 performed any work that was exclusive to Sectionmen or Truck Drivers. Therefore, based on the Board's reasoning in Award 36542, the instant claim must be denied. See similar Awards 11 and 12 of Public Law Board No. 6302 involving these same parties and factual situation.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.