"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT):

Grievance on behalf of J. J. Ward, for the reinstatement of the Signal Inspector's position on the Newark Seniority District, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 28(b), when it failed to make an Agreement with the General Chairman for the apportionment of positions after Carrier abolished the Claimant's position on December 29, 2001. (Carrier's File No. None. General Chairman's File No. New-Ol-05-02. BRS File Case No. 12528-B&0."

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

The Claimant's position as Signal Inspector on the Newark Seniority District was abolished on December 29, 2001 at which time he exercised his seniority to another Signal Inspector position. The Organization contends, on his behalf, that the Carrier violated Rule 28 that provides that 17 Signal Inspector positions are to be maintained ". . . from time to time based on requirements of the service, in the judgment of the Management . . ." and that if that number ". . . is increased or decreased . . . the apportionment of positions to each seniority district will be by mutual agreement."

Under the terms of Rule 28 the condition precedent necessary for the apportionment of positions by mutual agreement is whether the number of Signal. Inspectors increases or decreases over 17 such positions. Our review of the record however shows no evidence with regard to the number of Signal Inspector positions on the Newark Seniority District other than the fact that the Claimant's position was abolished. Thus, we do not know whether the number of such positions is less than, equal to, or greater than 17 and we cannot therefore determine whether the condition precedent has been fulflled. Accordingly, as the proponent of the alleged contract violation the Organization failed to carry its burden of proof.

AWARD