ora 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJWTWENT BOARD Award No. 6385
 SECORD DIVISION Docket No. 6246
 2-Bb0-MA-'72
 The Second Division consisted of the regular xaabers and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberraa when award was rendered.

Partiea to Dispute: ( (Machinists)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:
That under the controlling agreement, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company;, damaged Motor Car Repairman (Machinists) L. L. Noel, of the Akron Division, when they assigned Motor Car Repairmen (Machinists) R. A. Bunch, E. Cornwell and D. L. Carter of the Chicago Division to make repairs on Service Tie and Surface Unit #6 at Boaghtonville, Ohio on the Akron Division.

 That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to ce;pensate CLainant for the following dates at pro rata rate and time and one half rate as scheduled:

 'gates: S.T. O.T. Dates S.T. O.T.
 Ict. 3.2·70 8 hrs. 1 hrs. Oct. 26-70 8 hrs. 7 hrs.

 13 " 8 11 7 y n 27 8 h 4 n
 :, 14 " 8 " 4 _ 28 . 8 _ 3 ,.
 :. 15 _ 8 :: 4,. K 29 8 N 3



" 21 _ a » 3 " 4 8 _ 2 "
 :: 22 :~ 8 :, 3 :: ,: 5 8 ,.
 6 8 's 3:,

 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.
Form 1 Award Ho. 6385
 Page 2 Docket No. 6246


The claimant is esrplsed as a Motor Car Repairman with seniority on Carrier's Akron Division. During the period in question, October 12, 1970 through November 6,

 1970 there were a total of three Motor Car Repairmen available for assignment on The , -
 Akron Division. During this same period there were two Tie and Surface Units work
 ing on the Akron Division: one in the Youngstown, Mio area and the other about 113
 miles away in the vicinity of Boughton-rills, Ohio. During this same period claimant
 and one other Repairman carried on the Akron seniority list were assigned to the Tie
 Unit working at Youngstown while the third Repairman on the Akron Division list was
 assigned to the Tie Unit at Boughtonville. Also assigned to Boughtonville were
 three Motor Car Repairmen carried on the Chicago Division seniority list; these three
 men were rotated (one at a time) over the period in question. It should be noted that
 Boughtonville, Ohio is located approximately twelve miles east of the dividing point
 between the Akron and Chicago Divisions.




Under this rule, claimant contends that the Carrier had no right to assign the three Motor Car Repairmen from the Chicago Division to work on the Tie Unit Within the Akron Division, and that he was damaged by this assignment.

      The Carrier maintains that Rule 9 is applicable:

          . .,err

          Rate 9

          "Temporary Vacancies.

          Employees sent out to temporarily fill Vacancies at an outlying point

          or shop, or sent out on a temporary transfer to an outlying point or _

          shop, will be paid continuous time from tree ordered to leave home

          point to tine of reporting at point to which sent, straight-tin:

          rates to be paid for straight-tine hours at home station and for all

          other time, whether waiting or travelling. If on arrival at the

          outlying point there is an opportunity to go to bed for five hours or

          more before starting work, time will not be allowed for such hours ...."


The Carrier argues that "point" as used in Rule 28 would be the entire Akron Division and the Akron Division would be an "outlying point" for Chicago Division Motor Car Repairmen temporarily transferred under Rule 9, to work on the Akron Division.

 There is nothing in the record to indicate the meaning of the terms "outlying point or shop" as used in Rule 9. By the same token, the tern "point" as used in Rule 28 is further defined in that Rule for Maintenance of Way Department employees as Divisions (Rosters #11 and 12 for the Akron and Chicago DivW ions respectively). A simple extension for the Carrier's position would permit the temporary transfer of employees on a system-wide basis ignoring the provisions of ` Rule 28; this was manifestly not the intent of the parties.
 Form, 1 Award No. 6385
 page 3 Docket loo. 6246
 2-B&0-XA -' 72

      Nothing in this case challenges the right of the Carrier temporarily to

transfer emrl.,3,y-as in appraprit.to instances; howevpr,* this right may nat be
 exercised so as to abrogate the seniority rights pxaelded in Rule 28. We are persuaded that in this case the Carrier did violate the provisions of Rule 28.

 During the period covered by this claim., claimant worked all regular straighttixe hours on the Tie and Surtsce Unit near Youngstown and eras also paid for ninetyfive (95) hours at time and one-half. Claimant requests compensation for 152 straight-tisie hours " sixty-two and one hall' hours at time and one half for the period in question. Since claimant suffered no monetary loss in this case and nothing in the agreement provides for penalty payments, we shall deny the claim for compensa tion.

      AWARD f

      i

      Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion above.

      RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMM BOARD

      By Order of Second Division


Attest:
          "~,~. l

          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois,,. this 27th day of October, 1972.

 l
 i

 I

 i
 i