(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
 (and
 (
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company

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





FINDINGS:

 The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and that the parties were given due notice of the Hearing held.

 Claimant M. Farley, E. Scott, G. Jackson, and M. Taylor have established and hold seniority within the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department. On the date in question, Claimants were regularly assigned to Gang 3627. The Organization contends that on March 29 and 30, 2003, the Carrier allegedly assigned 13 employees to assist Gangs 3500 and 3504 to build track panels on the Carrier's Geneva Subdivision. Each of the 13 extra employees worked a total of 12
 Page 2 PLB 7101
 Case No. 15

 hours and 8 hours on March 29 and 30 respectively, at the overtime rate. It is uncontested that Claimants were available for duty on the Claim date, fully qualified and willing to perform the relevant work, but were not given the opportunity by the Carrier.

 The Organization submitted a Claim contending that the Carrier had violated the Agreement when the Carrier did not select Claimants to work on March 29 and 30 to aid in the building of track panels. According to the Organization, it was improper to assign the extra employees when Claimants were interested in the work and should have been called. As a result of this alleged violation, the Chairman requests that Claimants be compensated for 20 hours of work at their respective overtime rates.

 Conversely, the Carrier takes the position that the Organization cannot meet its burden of proof in this matter. The Carrier contends that pursuant to Rule 23L, Claimants were not entitled to said work. According to the Carrier, it is uncontested that the Gangs 3500 and 3504 were regularly assigned to the work at issue. Claimants were assigned to Gang 3627. Rule 23L mandates that the employees regularly assigned to the work shall therefore be assigned the extra work. In this case, the Gangs 3500 and 3504 were regularly assigned to the work in question and therefore, the work was properly assigned to these Gangs and no remedy is appropriate.



In the instant case, this Board cannot find that the Organization has been able to meet its burden of proof to show that Gangs 3500 and 3504 were not the regularly assigned employees. Therefore, the work was properly assigned to those Gangs. Other referees have similarly held:


Page 3 PLB 7101
 Case No. 15

 Thus, after a review of all the evidence, there has been no showing that the Carrier erred when it did not select Claimants to build track panels on March 29 and 30, 2003. The Claim is denied.
 Page 4 PLB 7101
 Case No. 15



`Steven M. Bierig

Ch~person and Neutral Member




                r <


    Dominic Ring Roy obinson

    Carrier Member Organization Member


                        y~

      Dated at Chicago, Illinois this day of /~'2~2J` 2009.