' PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1210 AWARD N0. 5
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
 - and
 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 1. Carrier violated the Scope of the Agreement by
 assigning Boilermakers to the construction and install
 . ation of a metal structure, which Carrier called a show
 case, outside the Back Shop at South Cumberland, lid.
 2. Carrier shall now compensate B&B Mechanics
 B. J. Twigg, R. G. Kerns, D. V. Stonebreaker and
 H. A. Westfall three (3) days pay. each, on account
 of the violation of the Agreement referred to in Part 1
 of this claim.
 OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to proceeding, it should be noted that this dispute
 involves a third party, namely the System Federation
 No. 30 AFL-CIO (Boilermakers). This Board, by letter
 ' to the General Chairman of said System Federation, dated
 December 11, 1973, advised that Organization of this dispute
 and invited him to be represented at a hearing on the matter,
 scheduled for January 15, 1974, or, in the alternative, to
 submit to this Board such statement as he might deem desirable
 and appropriate. The General Chairman was also furnished
 copies of the partisan submissions covering this dispute.


PL BOARD N0.' 12'10 (2) AWARD FO. 5

        The basic issue in this dispute is whether the Carrier

        erred in assigning the construction of a locomotive shop

        · display case to employees within the Boilermaker's craft

        instead of to B&B mechanics covered by the Maintenance of

        Way Agreement.

        The record in this case leaves much to be desired for it

        contains several conflicting assertions as to the facts.

        For example, the Carrier stated that the display case was

                                                              .

                  fabricated within the boiler shop area at the shops; the

                  superstructure or framework was then moved by crane to

                  the outside of the main plant building. The sheet metal


                  covering was cut to size at the Bolt and Forge Shop which _

                  was then welded to the superstructure. All of this work

                  was performed by the boilermakers. The holes for six pipe

                  legs to support the display case were dug by Shop Laborers

                  who also poured concrete around the four corner legs.

                  Petitioner, on the other hand, stated that, with the excep

                  tion of the pipe supports, ". . . all the rest of the work

                  of building this structure, was cut, fitted, and welded

                  into place at the, point of installation outside the Shop

- PL BOARD N0. 1210 (3) AWARD N0. 5

                    building." Further, Carrier asserted that the physical attachment was made by B&B employees while the Organization stated that their B&B forces were not permitted to perform any phase of the work.


                    Insofar as the pouring of the cement for the corner posts is concerned the Carrier offered to compensate Claimants for that portion of the work - 30 minutes each at straight time rate - which was declined. ,


                    Additionally, a careful review of the record of handling on the property fails to show that the Organization cited any Rule of the Agreement as having been violated. For example, when the claims were denied by letter dated September 10, 1971 the Carrier advised, in part, "Your claim . . . is not supported by the agreement." Still, the ensuing correspondence from the Organization failed to rebut this statement by reference to any Rule of the Agreement. The only Rule reference is in the statement of claim alleging violation of the Scope of the Agreement. This is the identical Rule that was the subject of our consideration in AWARD N0. 11 of this Board, and the same principle pertains as in that Award. The Boilermakers of System Federation No . 30, in their previously referred to Intervening Statement,.stated that Rule 71, Classification of Work, gives their employees the right to perform the disputed work. The only rebuttal, by Petitioner, to this assertion was that they do not agree.

PL BOARD N0. 1210 (4) AWARD N0. S
 ` The rationale expressed by this Board in its AWARDS 1 and 2
 ' is equally applicable in this case insofar as the obligation
 ' upon the Petitioner to perfect his claim is concerned
 In the light of the record before us,'and for the reasons
 set forth above, it is our determination that Petitioner
 failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to sustain the
 claim. Mere assertions, denials', and allegations are not
 · sufficient to satisfy the Burden of Proof doctrine.

 AWARD: That the Agreement was not violated; claim denied.

                      C. Robert RC itral Member


                  D.


A. J unningham, Er.l'oyee Member L . W. Burks, Carrier Member

 Baltimore, Md.
 March 11, 1974