Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9259
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8750
 2-MP-EW-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 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 imTOlved 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.

Claimant, J. J. Hoggard, is a Communications Maintainer headquartered at Poplar Bluff, Missouri. His regular work week is Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., standby day Saturday with Sunday as his rest day.

 It is the practice for Carrier to accept bids on the sale of old and new trucks. Carrier had on its property, at the time of this dispute, Mobile Truck No. 5490. Carrier was desirous to replace Mobile Truck No. 5490 with a new truck.

 On Thursday, December 14, 1978, Claimant was in North Little Rock, Arkansas, in a training school for Communication Maintainers as part of Carrier's retraining program when new equipment is introduced. On that day, Carrier needed to have a radio removed from Truck No. 5490 because the truck was to be traded that day. Because Claimant was at the training program, the Trainmaster assigned himself to perform the removal of the radio. This amounted to removing a radio mounting base fastened to the side of the truck with metal screws; removing a control that was fastened to the dashboard with metal screws; and removing an antenna mounted through a hole atop the truck's roof; and removing power wiring from the battery to the control head in mounting base and removing the control wiring from the mounting base to the control head.
 Form 1 Award No. 9259
 Page 2 Docket No. 8750
 2-MP-EW-'82

 The Organization claims that Carrier's action in allowing a trainmaster to perform the work violated Rule 1, Scope and Rule 24, Seniority. These state:









Carrier, on the other hand, argues that it did not violate the Agreement. First, it asserts that Claimant was not available to perform the work because he was at the retraining program. Second,assuming that Claimant was entitled to perform the work, Carrier argues that he is nevertheless entitled to no more money because he is a monthly paid employe.

 Even a cursory review of the Scope Rule indicates that the work performed by the trainmaster should have been performed by a covered employe. Moreover, the evidence introduced on the property indicates that this type of work has been exclusively performed by communication maintainers. In fact, Claimant was the one who installed the radio into Truck No. 5490.

 Thus, we are persuaded that Carrier's action in allowing the trainmaster to perform the work was improper. Numerous Second Division Awards substantiate the argument that a trainmaster has no right to perform craft work. See Awards 1761, 1771, 2146, 2492, 2985.

 However, we are persuaded that Claimant is entitled to receive no compensation here. First, the record evidence indicates that Claimant was not available to perform the work on the day in question. While the Organization argued that Carrier could have delayed trading in the truck, there is absolutely nothing in the Agreement that would require Carrier to delay the work in question. Thus, because Claimant was at retraining school, and because there is no evidence
 Form 1 Award No. 9259
 Page 3 Docket No. 8750
 2-MP-EW-'82

 to indicate that he was sent there in order to avoid having him perform the disputed work, we must conclude that Claimant was not available to perform the work.

 Second, assuming arguendo that Claimant was available to perform the work, he nevertheless would be entitled to no extra compensation. As a monthly rated employe, Claimant receives a monthly salary to cover all services rendered in this type of situation. All the work that he would have been called for would have been done during his normal bulletin hours. As such, Claimant has sustained no financial loss.




                                By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

    oremarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this, 28th day of July, 1982.