The record indicates that the organization pursued this claim as a violation of Side Letter No. 16 as well as other Rules of the Agreement. The Organization argued that the Claimant was qualified for the Grade "A" Machinist position at the Juniata Vehicle Garage and was passed over by the carrier in awarding the position to a junior employee.
During the progression of this claim on the property, the Carrier determined that it was in error and that the Claimant was qualified. Additionally, the position in dispute beginning January 26, 1993 was abolished on February 16, 1993. However, the onproperty record also indicates that the junior employee was "erroneously" paid the skill differential until March 23, 1993.
The instant claim requests the Board to reach decisions en several issues. The Carrier paid the Claimant the difference between his actual earnings and what he would have earned had he been correctly awarded the position through February 16, 1993. That part of the claim is settled. As the Board understands this claim, the following issues remain. The organization requests that Claimant be placed on the position for which he bid; that Claimant receive the three hour penalty payment under Rule 2-A-4(b); that lie be paid the skill differential; and that the payment should continue throughout the full period when the junior employee was compensated.
After careful consideration the Board reaches the following conclusions. This Board lacks authority to compel the Carrier to re-establish positions. The record of evidence demonstrates that the position disputed was abolished effective February 16, 1993. That portion of the claim is moot and dismissed.
The Organization's request for payment under Rule --A-4(al6(b) is denied. That Rule states in part that:
This Board finds no factual basis for payment under this Rule. The Organization's argument is pure assumption. There is no evidence of record to prove that the Carrier would have continued to hold the Claimant on his former position, rather than permitted him to perform the work of the position he should have been awarded. This portion of the claim is denied. Form 1 Award No. 13033
The Board is not entirely clear on what was included in the claim settlement on the property. It is clear on what it determines is proper under these conditions. The Board finds that the Claimant is to be paid the difference between what he actually earned and what he would have earned from January 26, through. February 16, 1993, including payment for skill differential. Assuming that the skill differential has already been paid, the, claim has been correctly settled on the property and is moot. Claimant is not to receive compensation for any time after the position was abolished on February 16, 1993. Whatever was paid to the junior employee until March 23, 1993 does not represent any loss actually incurred as a result of the Carrier's error and is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.