This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The facts do not appear to be in dispute. At the time this incident occurred, the Claimants were assigned to various positions on System Signal Construction Gang 7X14 on the Toledo Sub Division of the Louisville Division. The incident occurred on August 20, 21 and 22, 2001 when the Carrier assigned Safety Representative B. Carter, a former Conrail Signal Department employee, to "work" on a seniority district covered by the former B&O Agreement. The "work" consisted of providing food, beverages, and other supplies to employees working at cut-in locations.
By letter dated September 3, 2001, the Organization submitted its claim alleging that the Carrier violated Rule 40 of the B&O Agreement because:
Pursuant to its claim, the Organization requested a total of 30 hours straighttime pay and six hours overtime pay to be divided equally among the six Claimants.
The issue is whether the Carrier assigned CSXT Safety Representative Carter to perform "signal work" to the exclusion of the six Claimants on August 20, 21 and 22, 2001, when he served drinks, food and other supplies to employees working on a signal cut-in project on the former B&O property, and whether the Claimants are entitled to additional compensation for the alleged Agreement violation. Form 1 Award No. 37303
The Organization takes the position that the Carrier violated Rule 40 as well as CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94. The Organization contends that Safety Representative Carter holds no seniority on any B&O signal rosters and thus by allowing him to work on the B&O seniority district, the Carrier violated the B&O Agreement.
Conversely, the Carrier takes the position that it acted properly. There is no evidence to suggest that Safety Representative Carter performed any "signal work" on August 20, 21 and 22, 2001, that was either reserved by Agreement or past practice to BRS-represented employees. The Carrier contends that the Organization failed to provide any evidence of its allegations, and the claim should be denied. According to the Carrier, the claim ". . . is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion made as a hostile response towards CSXT's safety program."
After a review of all record evidence, the Board finds that it must agree with the Carrier. The burden falls on the Organization to prove that the Carrier erred when it assigned Safety Representative Carter to provide food and drinks to employees who were working on a cut-in project. We find that the Organization has been unable to meet that burden. The record discloses that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Safety Representative Carter performed "signal work" on the claim dates. The Organization failed to establish by contract language that the "work" at issue (serving drinks and food) was specifically mentioned as reserved to the Organization or retained within the scope of the Agreement or by past practice. Thus, this "work" was not shown to be reserved to the six Claimants or to any other employee represented by the Organization. This issue was previously addressed by the Board in Third Division Award 37117.
In sum, we find that the Organization has been unable to meet its burden of proof in this matter. Thus, we find that the claim must be denied.