Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7r"37
 SECOND DIVISION Docket 110. 724
 2-MP-MA-'78



Parties to Dispute:


Dispute: Claim of Employes:



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 Rail-way Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


at the punitive race on behalf of Claimant, a 1 lachinist employed by the
 Carrier in ';orth Little Rock, Arkansas. The Claim alleges that the CarriE:r.
 violated Rules 26(a) and 52(a) of the controlling Agreement when General
 Foreman B. D. Landers dressed a bearing on one of the large lift screws of
 the drop table, located at Carrier's 400 Yard RF-np at North Little Rock,
 Arkansas, and thus Claimant i:~ as denied the right to perform such work.
 The General Foreman finished this task, which had been assigned to 1.iachinist
 L. E. Wilson, in approximately thirty (30) minutes. Machinist Wilson z~,as

 I
 Form 1 Award No. 7537
 Page 2 Docket No. 70 24
 2-MP-CIA-' 78

 not present when the General Foreman performed the work since he had been sent to the storeroom. However, the Machinist Apprentice R. L. Burke was present when the work was performed.

 It is the Carrier's position that the General Foreman performed the work of dressing and applying the bearing to demonstrate to the assigned machinists (in fact to the assigned apprentice only, since Machinist Wilson was at the storeroom) the proper way to dress and apply these bearings. The Carrier contends that the Organization has not met its burden of proving that General Foreman Landers did any more than function as a supervisor as specifically permitted in paragraph two of Rule 26(9). Rule 26(9) reads as follows:



Moreover, the Carrier contends that no rule supports a claim for payment for four (4) hours' pay when the disputed work required but thirty (_0) minutes to perform, or for payment at the punitive rate for a claimant who performed none of the work upon which the claim is based.

 The Organization asserts that the work in question belongs to the Machinists' Craft pursuant to Rule 52(9) of the controlling Agreement, Machinists' Classification of Work Rule. They also claim that Rule ;,<3;a) prohibits any employe other than "mechanics or apprentices regularly employed as such" from performing; mechanics' work. It is aloo the Organization's contention that paragraph two of Rule 26(9) was modified. by Case No. A-7030, dated September 25, 1964, i.e. Article III - Assignment of Work - U.:c of Supervisors. Finally, the Organization contends that the Board has the authority to assess penalties to "police the rules of the Agreement", as stated in Second Division Award No. 1369, and therefore the claim for four hours' pay at the punitive rate is not excessive.

 It is clear from a careful reading of the record, that the work in question undoubtedly belonged to the Machinists' craft. Rule 26(9) specifically states, "None but mechanics or apprentices requiarly cmyloyed as such shall do mechanics' work". It also provides that "this rulL, does not prohibit foremen in the exercise of their duties to perform work". It is our opinion th~ji; tale 'oronan vas not exercising leis supervisory dodos, but was in fact, performing Machinists' work while the ~i~.chi_nisi~, who i~::.l been assigned to complete this work, :vas at the storeroom. Carrier, in its letter of April 7, 1976, stated that "a supervisor's job is to deto rnine that; the work is done correctly and to instruct en,ploycs in the proper a~.:~;iner of performing work". This Board unquestionably agrees with this a,:::~ rtion.
 Form 1 Award No. 7537
 page 3 Docket No. 7424
 2-MP-MA-'78

 However, General Foreman Landers labored for thirty minutes dressing and applying a bearing. There is no evidence in the record that the Machinist and Apprentice were having any difficulty performing their work, nor is there any evidence that either of them requested the Forewan's assistance or instruction. General Foreman Landers thus did more than instruct or sup°rvise Machinists.

 A preponderance of the-evidence of record in the instant dispute, clearly establishes that the General Foreman performed Machinists' work on the drop table at North Little Rock, Arkansas on September 8, 1975, and did not, as contended by the Carrier, merely perform his duties as a Supervisor. Rather, he performed the work himself, which work ,-Tas reserved to Machinists by Rule 26(a). Under the factual circ~z.n~aances present here, there was a violation of the controlling AEreement. Accordingly, the claim will be sustained. However, as stated in rnunerous Awards of this and other Divisions of the Adjustment Board, the pro rata rate, not the punitive rate, is -the proper rate of compensation for work not performed in those claims such as the one before us. Thus, we will sustain the claim at the pro rata rate. (cf. Second Division Awards Nos. 6187, 4I+16, 6359).




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By--4

 _ _ _

 `~.~';~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Datedlat Chicajo, Illinois, this 19th day of May, 1978.

 I