not be members of the wrecking crew be called to perform the work, if available. As we have stated above, carmen were not available at Pinckneyville to perform this work. The carmen employed at Pinckneyville were fully occupied with their normal duties of inspecting cars and servicing journal boxes and were not available to perform the rerailing work.
As we have seen, the work of rerailing cars has not been assigned exclusively to carmen. The shop craft agreement does not prohibit the use of other ,employes to perform such work. Furthermore, it follows that the rule does not require the carrier to call a regularly assigned wrecking crew every time there is a derailment. In this case, the carrier did not call a wrecking crew. The claimants who are members of the regularly assigned wrecking crew were not called and did not perform any work at Pinckneyville for the nine hours on each of the five days for which claim is made. Claimants worked regularly on their normal assignments at Dupo during the period of the claim. Claimants suffered no loss of pay and there is no basis, in any event, for a claim on behalf of the wrecking crew at Dupo and certainly no basis for the monetary claim. The employes have even requested your board to award the claimants one hour for each of the days at the time and one-half rate even though no service was performed.
In Award 4112, your board denied a monetary claim involving the same parties and same agreement as those present in this dispute where the employes were unable to show the claimant in that case suffered any loss. The employes alleged, in that dispute that the carrier violated that agreement by failing to assign the proper carman to fill a vacation vacancy. A claim was filed on behalf of a carman who had a regular assignment and who lost no time. The claim was denied. A similar decision was rendered in Award 3967.
Furthermore, there is no rule to support the penalty requested in this claim and your Board has no authority to assess a penalty in the absence of a rule. See Award 3672.
Although the principle is so well established that a claimant is not entitled to the time and one-half rate where he has suffered a loss of pay but has performed no work that citation should not be necessary, we call your attention to Awards 2958 and 2700 which denied claims for the punitive rate where no work was performed.
In the instant claim, a number of cars had been derailed because of a defective track condition. Trackmen were called who rerailed the cars and got them out of the way and repaired the track damage. The claimants were not called and were not used and suffered no loss of pay. Under these facts, there is no basis whatsoever for the claim and the claim was denied in its entirety.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act ,as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Two draglines were used in lieu of the wrecking derrick to handle this derailment at Pinckneyville, outside of the Dupo yard limits, where the wrecking crew was stationed. Many awards of this Division have held, under these and similar rules, that in the absence of special circumstances, such as emergencies, regularly assigned wrecking crews are entitled to wrecking work when their derrrick or similar equipment is used and that under such circumstances they should be called.
Awards 1322, 2343, 2740 and 4393, cited by the Carrier, the last three of which relate to this property and this Agreement, did not involve the use of a dragline or similar equipment and therefore are not persuasive.
In connection with this incident the Organization has already claimed and accepted payment for the two carmen stationed at Pinckneyville who were not used. It cannot consistently demand compensation for the wrecking crew also.