This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

This claim protests the rate of pay being received by the Claimants, Odenton, Maryland Maintainers, from October 4, 1999 onward, based on the contention that they are performing the same work as Electronic Technicians (ET), who receive $2.36/hour more, and relying upon the following language of the Agreement:

"RULE 33 - TOUR WHERE MORE THAN ONE RATE

APPLICABLE

An employee, who during a tour of duty performs work for which more than one rate of pay is applicable, shall be paid for the entire tour of duty at the highest rate of pay applicable to any of the work performed. An employee who performs service temporarily in a lower rated position shall not have his rate reduced."

The Organization argues that prior to October 4, 1999 the Carrier converted some Maintainer positions to ET positions due to the communications work they performed, and asserts that the Claimants are also responsible for performing these same communications related tasks, requiring that they be compensated at the higher rate of pay. The Organization tendered to the Carrier during the processing of the claim on the property, a five page listing of the ordinary and extraordinary duties performed by "Agreement Covered Communications Employees" in support of its claim, and asserts that when an employee substantially performs work in a higher rated position the Board has held that he should be compensated at the higher rate, citing Third Division Awards 12634, 20311, 22533, and 27982.

The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to present any evidence to meet its burden of proving the essential elements of a Rule 33 violation, including the work actually being performed by the Claimants on the claim dates and what work is alleged to be ET work. The Carrier asserts that the generic list of duties of "Agreement Covered Communications Employees" does not distinguish between the work ordinarily performed by ETs and Maintainers. The Carrier

argues that the claim lacks specificity and is vague, and absent any evidence of what functions the Claimants were actually performing, the claim must be dismissed for failure of proof, citing Public Law Board No. 5081, Award 6; Third Division Awards 19833, 19960, 20356, 20147, 28782 and Second Division Award 11385. It notes that the Claimants were properly compensated for the work they performed.

A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of Rule 33 in this case. An allegation that the Claimants performed the work of ETs, listing general communications duties of all department employees, cannot substitute for proof of the actual functions performed by the Claimants on the claim dates and identification of which of such duties was reserved to the ET, rather than Maintainer, classification. Assertions without more do not rise to the level of probative evidence. Public Law Board No. 5081, Award 6. The Organization failed to provide any specific evidence in support of its alleged violation, and, accordingly, the claim must fail.

AWARD