Form 1 NATIONAL P.AILROAD ADJUSTi4= BOARD Award No. 7231
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7087
 2-PCT-MA-t77



Parties to Disr~ute:


Dispute: Claim of '-E'mployes:



Findings:
The Second Division, of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, f'_ads 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.

The facts of the matter before us are not in dispute. The Claimant was used on other than his own regular position or, the date claimed. The vacancy which was thus filled by Claimant was caused by the one day absence due to sickness of Machinist Lebo. The Claimant worked the other position for more than four (4) hours.

 Petitioner avers that Rule 2-A-1 (e), fourth paragraph, of the Schedule Agreement, controls; the Carrier avers that the provisions of Article 13 of the "Supplemental Sickness Benefit Agreement", effective July 31, 1973, is controlling in the disposition of this claim.

 The Schedule .greement, as amended October 15, 1960, Rule 2-A-1-e, last paragraph, states as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 7231
 Page 2 Docket Into. 7087
 2-PCT-MA-t77
 "Except as provided in Transport Workers Regulation 2-A-4
 (Rule 2-A-5 for System Federation), an employee moved from
 one position to another on the same shift, at the instance of
 Management, will receive an additional three (3) hours` pay at
 the straight time rate of the regular position he holds for each
 day he is required to work on another position."

 Article 13, of the Supplemental Sickness Benefit Agreement, states in pertinent part:

Petitioner has stated that Rule 2-A-1-a is a permissive rule and not a penalty rule. The Rule requires that if the management elects to move an employee under applicable circumstances the management will pay an additional three (3) hours pay. Management could, obviously, avoid this additional payment by merely blanking the job involved, it is their option. Certainly the payment of the three (3) hours is a restriction against unilateral management action; if management chooses to move an employee management pays. The Carrier freely acknowledged that in the absence of referred to Article 13 the subject claim would be payable.

 In defense of his position that the Supplemental Sickness Benefit Agreement has no application to this dispute, Petitioner has stated, "Claimant was not sick or disabled, therefore does not come under~the provisions of the Supplemental Sickness Benefit Agreement." The physical condition of the Claimant in this dispute has no bearing whatsoever! Nor is there any limiting language in Article 13 to the effect that an employee absent due to disability must be qualified to receive benefits.

 The language of Article 13 appears to the Board to be clear and unambiguous, and its application to the subject dispute is equally clear. Simply stated, an employee was absent due to disability (sick), his job was covered for the one day of absence by the claimant (a one day realignment of forces), therefore any restrictions against such realig=ent are not applicable under these circumstances.

 Carrier has cited Award No. 1, SBA No. 836, involving the same carrier, the same Agreement provisions, but a different Organization. The issue in that dispute was decided in favor of the Carrier and we see no reason to depart from that determination and the principles recited therein. We will deny the claim.

 Claim denied.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 7231
 Docket No. 7087
 2-PCT-MA-'77

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST HE-ITT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By .~iR...t~··~.~ .s

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March, 1977.