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

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

Careful review of the contents of the parties' two Submissions reveals significant conflicts. The Carrier denied the claim on the basis of a handwritten statement from Roadmaster M. A. Koelsch to the effect that the Claimant was asked to work the overtime opportunity on September 15, 2001, but declined. According to the Carrier's Submission, the claim was discussed in conference on April 24, 2002 during which the Carrier asserts that the Organization did not provide any additional information or evidence that would cause the Carrier to deviate from its previous denial.

According to the Organization's Submission, the conference was held on April 17, 2002 during which the Organization presented statements from both the Claimant and Foreman R. D. McLaughlin. According to the Claimant's statement, he was not asked by the Roadmaster to work on September 15, 2001.

The statements allegedly presented by the Organization at the conference are contained in the Organization's Submission. They are not in the Carrier's

Notwithstanding the foregoing evidentiary dispute, even if we accept the two statements proffered by the Organization as having been properly exchanged during the development of the record on the property, we nevertheless are confronted with a conflict of material fact that was not resolved in the on-property record: Did the Claimant decline, or did he not decline, the overtime opportunity? Our role is essentially appellate in nature and does not permit us to resolve such evidentiary conflicts. When, as here, we are confronted with such irreconcilable conflicts of material fact, we have no choice but to declare that the Organization's burden of proof has not been satisfied. As a result, we must deny the claim.

AWARD