BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

and

NCASSACHUSMS BAY COMMUTER RAILROAD

Case No. 34

STATEMEPIT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:




2. For this violation, the Organization is requesting that the her be reed to comply with the Rule when similar circumstances occur in the future." FINDINGS:
 The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimant, alleging that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it failed to properly advertise certain positions at the Readville, MA, headquarters, resulting in a junior employee working overtime in a position in violation of the Rules. The her denied the claim.
 The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety because the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned overtime to a junior employee when the senior employee, the Claimant, was not given the opportunity to bid on the position that performed maintenance overtime work; because the responsibility area changed to such an extent that the positions must be re-bid; and because the single remaining crew must be re-advertised so that all employees are aware that this crew has all responsibility for maintenance on straight-time and overtime. The her contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety because the Organization failed to 1
 meet its burden of establishing the essential elements of its claim; because the Organization has not shown that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement; and because neither the clear language of the Agreement nor past practice require that overtime territory be included in the bid posting.
 The parties being unable to resolve their mute, this matter carne before this Board.
 This Board bas reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Oration has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it did not advertise certain positions at the Readville, Massachusetts, headquarters. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
 The Organization argues that there was some requirement to abolish and repost positions if the responsibility area changed in some fashion. The record reveals that the practice has been that twice a year, the responsibility area had been reorganized and there has been no protest from the Organization. That has taken place since at least 2003 and probably before that when Amtrak was in control of the property.
 There was no obligation to repost the positions when the responsibility area changed and, therefore, the Claimant had no right to claim any overtime that became available.

2
 The claim is denied.

 DATED: ri f f-1 l
"' l.i:Ii1. Mt'.Blbe rA·iia i iJ11 U