The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
The instant claim represents a work jurisdiction dispute between different seniority classifications within the same overall craft. It is undisputed that employe T. Foster is a Class A Machine Operator in the Track Department. It is further undisputed that the trackhoe in question is normally operated by him for work in and around track. The Organization, however, contends that the claimed work is reserved to the B&B Department. In the Organization's view, the Carrier's assignment of Foster to perform it violated Rules 1, 4, and 11 of the Agreement.
Our review of the instant record shows it to be premised entirely on assertions by the Organization that were, point by point, refuted by the Carrier. Given that posture, it was incumbent upon the Organization to provide probative evidence to support each of the requisite elements of Public Law Board No. 7163
proof necessary to perfect its claim. The record is devoid of such evidence. Indeed, the record does not even establish with certainty what precise work Foster performed. The Organization's assertions in this regard were directly refuted by the Carrier. Moreover, there is no specific language in the rules cited by the Organization that explicitly reserves to the B&B Department all trackhoe operation associated with culvert installation.
In disputes of this nature, it is the Organization's sole burden of proof to establish the essential facts necessary to support its claim. That burden cannot be satisfied by mere assertion. On the record before us, therefore, we must find that the Organization had not proven that the Agreement was violated as alleged in the claim. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
