Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier improperly suspended work for seven (7) hours and twenty (20) minutes of the employes assigned to Tie Gang 9167 and Support Gangs 9272, 9197, 9996 and 9177 on June 2, 2004 (System File MW-04-115/ 1403667 MPR).
2. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier improperly suspended work for seven (7) hours and twenty (20) minutes of the employes assigned to Tie Gang 9166 and Support Gangs 3837, 9271, 9135, 9176 and 9196 on June 2, 2004 (System File MW-04116 / 1403668 MPR).
3. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier improperly suspended work for seven (7) hours and twenty (20) minutes of the employes assigned to Undercutter Gang 9160 and Support Gangs 9118 and 9102 on June 2, 2004 (Sys-
tern File MW-04-122/ 1407571 MPR).
PLB 7156, Award 8
Tie Gangs 9167, etc.
Page 2
On June 2, 2004, the gangs identified in the statement of claim were involved in an extensive tie renewal project and related work in the vicinity of Fort Worth, Texas. The gangs were working compressed work schedules of eight consecutive Il hour days followed by 7 rest days.
Claimants from those gangs reported to work at 2:00 p.m. that date. After working for three hours and 40 minutes, the Carrier suspended work for the day due to thunderstorms in the area.
.. [Oln June 2, 2004 there were severe thunderstorms with lightning, strong wind with hail warnings. These storms were picked up through Doppler radar and through the local weather stations along with the supervisors of the gang keeping watch and talking to the Spring Dispatch center, who also track storms for transportation safety purposes. It was due to these actual facts the gangs were sent home. .. The storms moved in at 5:30 PM ... [T]he supervisors made the decision to call the work day off for the safety of the employee's. This decision was indeed made after waiting a couple of hours and monitoring the storm situation . ...
The Organization disputes the factual assertions concerning the weather conditions, even to the extent of stating that the sun was shining. According to the Organiza-
(b) Not less than five (5) working days' advance notice will be given before regularly established positions are abolished . ...
send employees home for dangerous weather conditions.
The Organization has the burden to demonstrate all the necessary elements of its claim. Stripped to it essence, the Organization asserts the weather was not a safety concern on the date in dispute. The Carrier asserts the opposite. The record supports both positions. But the burden is on the Organization. A record in factual dispute to this extent does not allow for a conclusion that the Organization has carried its burden.
Based on the above, the claim must be denied.