Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No.
36581
Docket No.
SG-36165
03-3-00-3-337
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation Company (former Chesapeake
( and Ohio Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (C&O):
Claim on behalf of G. S. Scruggs for payment of two hours and forty
minutes at the time and one-half rate, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 25, when it failed to call the
Claimant to ascertain the cause of a track circuit light at Mile Post 288.6
near Covington, Virginia on February 20,1999, and instead used a person
not covered by the Agreement to perform the covered work. Carrier's File
No. 15 (99-118). General Chairman's File No. 99-22-CD. BRS File Case
No. 11179-C&O."
FINDINGS:
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 36581
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36165
03-3-00-3-337
The instant claim had its origin in a letter dated March 31, 1999, from the
Organization which stated as follows:
"The instant dispute was triggered on February 20, 1999, at MP 288.6 at
or near Covington, VA, when the carrier used a track inspector from the
M
of W
Department to ascertain the cause
of
a track circuit light in that
area."
The Carrier denied the claim indicating that there was no record
of
any track
circuit problem in the area
of
or on the date
of
the claim as presented by the
Organization.
Throughout the entirety
of
the on-property handling of the dispute, the
Organization offered nothing more than its assertion as originally presented. No
probative evidence to support the assertion was advanced by the Organization.
Therefore, the Board is left with an unsupported assertion of work allegedly performed
with no proof that the alleged work was, in fact, performed.
The Organization failed to meet its burden to support the contention that a Rule
violation occurred.
The claim is denied for lack of proof.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This
Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June 2003.