"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Mr. B. Andras to perform overtime bridge tender service at Mermentau Bridge at Mile Post 180.26 at Mermentau, Louisiana beginning on June 18, 2003 and continuing through June 22, 2003 instead of regularly assigned Mermentau Bridge Tender G. Fontenette [System File JFSF-03-09/15-03-0014 (MW) ATS1.

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant G. Fontenette shall now be compensated for thirtytwo (32) hours pay at his respective time and one-half rate of pay."

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21,1934.

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

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

The claim involves the assignment of overtime Bridge Tender work at the Mermentau Bridge. The Organization maintains that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned overtime work to an employee who was not regularly assigned to the Mermentan Bridge. The Crier counters that it assigned the work to senior employee B. Andras.

It is undisputed that Andras, who was working relief at that location during

"Except when employer are utilized as provided in Rule 33(f), employer assigned to sections, work districts, specific area and/or locations shall be given preference in relative seniority order among other employer of the gang, work district or location to overtime work to be performed within such section, district area or location."

The Board carefully reviewed the record evidence. The employees at issue were not assigned to a gang or section; they were assigned to a location - the Mermentau Bridge. Andras was working at that location and had more seniority than the Claimant. Andras was assigned the overtime pursuant to Rule 33(I). The burden is on the Organization to establish a violation of the Agreement. Because the Organization failed to meet its burden of proof, the claim is denied.

AWARD