the Organization's point of view, the Rule is clear on its face and applicable, because the Claimant did his own job assignment and relieved the vacationing employee working with a Surfacing Gang, changing rail in crossings and taking trouble calls on Laird's territory.

The Carrier argues that the Claimant was properly paid. He was used off of his assigned territory on the adjacent territory of vacationing employee Laird and compensated accordingly, as per Rule 45 (J). That Rule states:

"When a signal maintainer or assistant signal maintainer (when assigned to a signal maintainer) is used off his assigned territory during the assigned hours of his work week, when instructed by proper authority will be allowed %Z time his hourly rate in addition to his regular straight time hourly or monthly rate for the time consumed off his assigned territory, time to be continuous from the time he leaves the limits of his assignment until he again re-enters his assigned territory; except, that in instances such as ice, sleet, and snow storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, fire and earthquakes where the signal system is interrupted at any point which requires the service of additional signal employees, the adjoining signal maintainer may be used without payment of the '/2 time penalty referred to herein during the time their services are used in restoring the signal system to safe and proper working order."

The Claimant was paid the penalty indicated in Rule 45(J). The Carrier maintains that it did not violate the National Vacation Agreement and properly paid the Claimant.

We carefully reviewed all facts. The Board in its appellate role must evaluate carefully what the parties do or fail to do while the dispute progresses on the property. In that regard, similar claims may reach different conclusions depending upon what is presented, rebutted, or neglected by the parties.

In the instant case, the Organization made a prima facie case and the burden of going forward with the evidence shifted to the Carrier. The Carrier rebutted the applicability of the National Vacation Agreement, Sections 6 and 10(b) on this

property. Most important to our decision is the Carrier's position stated in pertinent part:

11. . . this Rule was negotiated on this property to include all authorized time that a Signal Maintainer is used off his assigned territory for any reason, including vacation and supersedes Section 10 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement.

For many years since the negotiation of Rule 45 (J), Signal Maintainers have been paid the additional %2 time when used on the assigned territory of a Signal Maintainer who is on vacation. They receive this for all such time regardless of whether the time is equivalent of twenty-five percent of the work load of the vacationing Signal Maintainer. I can find no record of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on this property ever claiming that a Signal Maintainer is entitled to payment such as you are now claiming. The reason that you have not is because Rule 45 (J) was negotiated to cover this situation as well as others."

The Carrier made the above assertion and it was never rebutted. Not one single statement disputing any part of the Carrier's above stated position was ever put into the record. Had it been rebutted, the affirmative defense would have required solid substantiation. As it exists in this record it must be accepted as fact. .

Accordingly, on this property, the Board must conclude that the parties negotiated Rule 45 (J) and applied it in the manner argued for a very long time. Such practice by our review of this record is of a very long standing. Considering decades of practice versus arguably unambiguous language in the Agreement the Board must find in these instant circumstances that no violation occurred. (See Third Division Award 32210). Accordingly, the claim must be denied.

AWARD