request, but, during the operation, Signal Maintainer Andrews did stand by, and hold his hand on the shoulder of that employe.

"Traveling Signal Maintainer Garlington guided the butt end of the new pole into the hole, and he and Signal Maintainer Andrews back-filled the hole, around the pole, with earth; however, an employe of the Communication Section did, at the request of either Mr. Garlington or Mr. Andrews, assist in tamping the fresh earth, in spite of the fact that Mr. Andrews had clear instructions to the effect that he was to see that the entire work was performed in such a manner as to obviate any excuse for a claim based on the contention that signal work was performed by any forces other than signal forces.

"Any part of the work in question which was performed by an employe, or by employes, of the Communication Section was so performed at the request of the employes of the Signal Section present, and not in compliance with any instructions from either a supervisor or an officer of this Company, and not in accordance with the wishes of our Management.

"Apparently this entire dispute grew out of the desire of two employes of the Signal Section to take advantage of a situation whereby they could unload some of their own work on others, and make the remainder somewhat less laborious. Certainly it is not incumbent on our Management to have every little job so policed as to insure that no member of any one craft shall ever take advantage of the willingness of a member of some other craft to 'lend a helping hand'.

"The information that I have been able to develop in regard to this claim, as was related to you in our conference of May 26, 1961, and as has been set forth in this letter, indicates no violation by the Carrier of the scope rule, or any other rule of the effective Rules Agreement, nor of any interpretations, nor of past practice. Accordingly, the claim is hereby denied in its entirety."

General Chairman Estes next appealed the claim to Mr. W. J. Collins, Director of Labor Relations of Carrier, under date of June 3, 1961. Mr. Collins was Carrier's highest designated officer to whom claims such as this may be appealed. A copy of that letter was sent to Mr. McKerley notifying that officer that his decision was rejected.

Mr. Collins acknowledged receipt of the appeal letter on June 5, 1961.

Another letter was written by Mr. Collins on July 6, 1961, suggesting conference date of July 17, 1961, which was accepted by General Chairman Estes.

Conference was held on July 17, 1961, and in confirmation thereof a Memorandum of Conference was prepared, the pertinent portion of which is reproduced below:

"MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE
HELD AT SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

WITH

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
July 17, 1961

"Present for

Central of Georgia Railway Company:

Mr. J. L. Ferrell, Assistant Director of Labor Relations
Mr. W. M. Whitehurst, Superintendent Communications & Signals

"Present for

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen:

Mr. J. R. Estes, Jr., General Chairman

“DOCKET SIG 8318-File SIG 464-Claim (a). That the Carrier violated the Agreement of July 1, 1950, when on Tuesday, January 31, 1961, two employes of the Communications Department (Mr. Moss and Mr. Dacus) were instructed or permitted to work one and onehalf hours each putting up or setting a traffic signal pole at Tenth Avenue, Columbus, Ga.

Claim (b). That Mr. R. L. Teece, Signal Maintainer at Phenix City, Ala., be paid for three hours at his overtime rate of pay on account of this violation.

"DECISION-The record shows that Signal Maintainer J. J. Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer P. F. Garlington were positively instructed by the Supervisor of Communications and Signals, Mr. L. J. Butler, to perform the work in question. The work in question was to replace one of the poles supporting the street blinker light at the intersection of Tenth Avenue and this Company's tracks in the City of Columbus, Georgia. These Signal employes were told that they could use a company truck equipped with a hoist and boom to raise and set the new pole. The truck, while regularly assigned to the Communications Employes, was available at the time in point, and Supervisor Butler instructed Mr. Andrews to operate the truck rigging in raising the pole, that if he so desired he would be at liberty to get one of the Communications men to show him how to manipulate the equipment on this truck for raising the pole, but to do it himself, preferably. Mr. Andrews had previously been shown how to operate this equipment. Carrier's records show that the two Signal Maintainers dug the hole for this pole and later learned that Mr. Andrews asked one of the Communications men to operate the rigging on the truck and that Mr. Andrews stood there and watched Mr. Garlington guide the butt of the pole into the hole, and that the Signal forces filled the hole around the pole with soil. We also later learned that one of the Communications employes did perform some of the tamping of the soil in this hole around the pole even despite the fact that Signal Maintainer Andrews had been instructed that Signal forces were to perform all of the work in this connection, in such a manner as to preclude any possible claims. These positive instructions were issued in view of the fact that the Signalmen's Organization was grasping at straws and filing claims about each and every little thing, no matter how technical, that they could develop.

It was further shown by the Carrier that Mr. Teece, the Claimant, was on duty and under pay at the time this work was performed. Mr. Teece has no contract rights to work in Columbus, Georgia for the reason that is not his territory. The men who were supposed to do the work were Signal Maintainer Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer Garlington.

The claim is without any semblance of merit whatsoever and is, therefore, denied in its entirety.

(And other docket claims were discussed.)

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY

By /s/ J. L. Ferrell

J. L. Ferrell, Assistant Director
of Labor Relations.

"APPROVED:

/s/ W. J. Collins

W. J. Collins, Director of Labor
Relations."

Director of Labor Relations Collins wrote a letter of transmittal on July 17, 1961, sending General Chairman Estes six copies of the above-described Memorandum of Conference. Mr. Estes acknowledged receipt on July 19, 1961, by signing and returning to Mr. Collins a copy of the July 17, 1961, letter.

The next communication of record is the letter of April 9, 1962, from Mr. Jesse Clark, President, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, to Executive Secretary Schulty of the Board, serving notice of the Employes intention to file an ex parte submission in this dispute.

The Employes have failed in all handlings on the property to cite a rule, interpretation or practice which gives them what they are here demanding. Not knowing of any rule, interpretation or practice that has been violated, Carrier has denied the instant claim at each and every stage of handling on the property. The claim has no semblance of merit.

The Rules and Working Conditions Agreement between the Central of Georgia Railway Company and its signal employes, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, is effective July 1, 1950, as amended. Copies are on file with the Board, and by reference, are made part and parcel of this dispute.

POSITION OF CARRIER: The claimant, Mr. R. L. Teece, was on duty and under pay performing work on his assigned territory at the date and hour the work here involved was performed. Columbus, Georgia, is not within the assigned territory of Mr. Teece. The claim for Mr. Teece is purely that of a penalty, which is wholly unsupported by the Agreement. Mr. Teece could not possibly have been in two places at one time. The men who were instructed, and were supposed to do all of the work were Signal Maintainer Andrews and Traveling_Signal Maintainer Garlington, whose headquarters are Columbus, Georgia. Exception was taken on the property, and it is again taken by the Carrier to this improper and unavailable claimant.

The facts are set forth in "Carrier's Statement of Facts" of this submission. The Supervisor, Mr. Butler, told Signal Maintainer J. J. Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer P. F. Garlington, headquarters, Columbus, Georgia, to replace one of the poles supporting the street blinker light at the intersection of Tenth Avenue and this company's tracks in the City of Columbus, Georgia. These signal employes were told that they could use a company truck equipped with a hoist and boom to raise and set the new pole. Signal poles are normally set with the coaling crane in most cases. Once in a while a wood pole is set by hand, using pikes to raise the top end up into the air. and guiding the butt end of the pole into the hole previously dug in the ground. A company truck, while regularly assigned to the communications employes, was available at the time in point, and Supervisor of Communications and Signals, Mr. Butler, gave signal employes Andrews and Garlington permission to use the truck, equipped with a hoist and boom, to raise and set the new pole. Mr. Andrews had been shown how to work the mechanism on the truck to raise and set poles, but not having had much experience in its operation, he requested his supervisor, Mr. Butler, to permit him to let one of the communications employes to operate the mechanism. Mr. Butler acceded to Mr. Andrews' request, but instructed him to stand next to the communications man while this operation took place, and all other work must be accomplished by him (Mr. Andrews) and Mr. Garlington. The reason Mr. Butler so instructed Mr. Andrews was to try to avoid any claim in connection with the replacing of this wooden pole. Supervisor Butler knew that General Chairman Estes had been and is now filing claims about any and everything imagineable, and Mr. Butler wanted to be certain to avoid even a technical alleged violation of the signalmen's agreement. But, of course, that did not stop General Chairman Estes, because here is the claim. The fact is Carrier has made no changes whatever in its practices of having work performed by its signal employes. Carrier emphatically denies that it has farmed out any work covered by the Scope Rule of the signalmen's agreement.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS SQUARELY UPON

THE EMPLOYES

It is elementary that one charging a violation of the agreement, must prove the charge. Mere unsupported allegations do not constitute proof. On this point, see the following awards:

Third Division Award 10323 (McDermott):

"The claim, however, must fail for lack of proof. Mere assertions of the Claimant are not sufficient to substantiate a claim."

* * **

*. The Car

rier has challenged this and there is no evidence of record to support the employe's statement. In the instant case, unless the petitioner show proof of the claim and proves a definite violation of the agreement, there can be no alternative but to deny the claim. See Awards Nos. 9563; 9551; 6937; 8840, 8674; 8330; and 8124. It goes without saying that mere unsupported allegations such as made by the claimant, Marie D. Simms, do not constitute proof. See Awards Nos. 9783; 9261; 9222; 8065; and 6359."

Third Division Award 6402 (McMahon):

"It is therefore the Opinion of the Board that no conclusive evidence has been produced to show any violation of the Agreement as alleged. We again reiterate as we have said many times before, the burden of proof is upon the party making the claim, and where competent proof is lacking a sustaining award is improper.

*

"AWARD

"Claim denied."

Third Division Award 6379 (Kelliher)

"The Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proof to show a contract violation.

"AWARD

"Claim denied."

Third Division Award 6378 (Kelliher):

"Based upon an analysis of all the evidence, it must be found that the petitioners have failed to sustain the burden of proof and, therefore, claim is accordingly denied.

"Claim denied."

"AWARD

Third Division Award 5418 (Parker):

* Under our decisions (see e.g., Award No. 4011) the burden of establishing facts sufficient to require or permit the allowance of a claim is upon him who seeks its allowance and, where that burden is not met, a denial Award is required for failure of proof.

"AWARD

"Claim denied."

And there are many other Awards of the Board on this point, to numerous to mention.

In view of all the facts and circumstances shown by the Carrier in this Ex Parte Submission, Carrier respectfully requests the Board to deny this baseless claim in its entirety.

OPINION OF BOARD: Signal Maintainer J. J. Andrews and Traveling Signal Maintainer P. F. Garlington were instructed by Supervisor of Communications and Signals L. J. Butler to replace one of the poles supporting a street blinker light at the intersection of Tenth Avenue and Carrier's tracks in Columbus, Georgia. The alleged violation occurred on Tuesday, January 31, 1961. These Signal Maintainers were told they could have the use of a truck assigned to the Communications Section to raise and set the new pole. The creosote pole was delivered to the work site by two employes from the Communications Department.