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.
The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimant, alleging that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it failed to re-bulletin a vacant ballast regulator position, and instead improperly assigned a Truck Operator to said machine.
The Organization contends that the claim should be sustained in its entirety because (1) the Carrier's violations of the Agreement definitely deprived the Claimant of the benefit of his seniority in filling the vacant ballast regulator position (2) the Carrier violated the Agreement by assigning a Truck Operator to the position rather than bulletining or otherwise allowing the Claimant to exercise his seniority to the position (3) there is no merit to the Carrier's defenses, and (4) the Claimant is entitled to the requested remedy. The Carrier counters that the claim should be denied in its entirety because (1) the Carrier properly bulletined the position (2) the Carrier properly filled the temporary vacancy in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, and (3) the Organization failed to meet its burden of proof.
The Board carefully reviewed the record and finds that the Organization failed to meet its burden to prove that the Agreement was violated when the Carrier did not re-bulletin a Machine Operator position for the ballast regulator on Gang 5765 and later assigned a Truck Operator to operate that machine.
It is clear from the record that the machine in question was not operated for more than 30 days. The Carrier is not required to re-bulletin a position unless there is work performed in excess of 30 calendar days. The initial claim indicated that the machine was operated from May 12 to May 22, 2009. It was then operated from June 8 through June 12 and again from June 15 through June 18. The Claimant Form 1 Award No. 41580
decided to attempt to displace the position when his position was abolished on May 29, 2009.
The record also reveals that the Carrier attempted to fill the position and was unsuccessful in finding people to bid on it. As noted above, the Carrier is not required to re-bulletin a position unless work is performed in excess of 30 days.
The Organization failed to meet its burden of proof in this case. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.