STATEME'N'T OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned eight (8) section laborers from Supervisor Edwards' district to perform track work on Section 22 at Jackson, Mississippi on February 3, 4, 5, fi, 7, 10 and 11, 19CO (System File LA-87-T-69ICase 618.)
r 2) Section Laborer; Racy Brown, S. Craig, Robert Brown, Judge Davis and R. Patterson each be allowed pay at their respective straight time rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man hours expended by the laborers from Supervisor Edward's district in the performance of the work referred to within Part (1) of this claim.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimant are track laborers regularly assigned to Section Gang 422 at Jackson, &Iississippi, which is within Supervisor _Nloore's district,
The seniority of section laborers is confined to their gangs, except when forces are reduced, they may exercise seadority throughout the Supervisor's district on which employed as per Rule 6(f J which reads:
"Seniority rights of section laborers in the Track Department as such will be restricted to their gangs, except when forces are reduced laborers ohe<ted will have the right to displace junior laborers in service on the Supervisor's District on which employed."
Notwithstanding the cear proyi=ions of the aforecited rule, on February 3, 1, 5, °, 7, 10 and 11, 1969, the Carrier assigned eight (8) track laborers, whose seniority is restric.ed .o the section gang at Crystal Springs on Supervisor Edwards' district, to perform the tie renewal work on the claimants' assigned section territory (Supervisor Moore's District).
The claimants :were a.vahable, fully qualified and willing to have performed this work if the Carrier had so desired.
"Employes will rot be temporarily transferred by management rrom one seniority district to another except when necessary because of flood, fire, storm, hurricane pressing necessity, or when agreed to between management and General Chairman. Employes thus transferred will retain seniority rights on the district from which transferred."
Claim was timely and properly presented and handled by the Employes at all stages of appeal up to and including the Carrier's highest appellate officer.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated September 1, 1934, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: A tie renewal program was in progress on Section 22 of the Louisiana Division in February, 1969. All the available members of the section gang assigned to Section 22 were assigned to the program. In order to perform the work it was necessary to augment the work force of the section gang.
Inasmuch as there was more work than the regularly assigned employes could perform the company was free to hire additional employes to work on the section; subcontract the work; or assign available track laborers from other sections to assist the members of gang 22. The company elected to follow the latter course of action and assigned the members of the Crystal Springs gang to assist in the program. The members of the Crystal Springs gang did not transfer to Section 22. They went on and off duty at their regular headquarters point at the beginning and end of each work day. To repeat, the Crystal Springs gang was not transferred to Section 22. The gangs worked together on the tie renewal program and neither gang lost any time as a result of the adjustment of forces. No overtime was performed by the Crystal Springs gang.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arose as a result of Carricr xnq~tiring track laborers from Crystal Springs on Supervisor Edwards' district to assist in performing tin renewal work on Section 22 seniority district. Supervisor Moore's district, on the dates in question.
The Organization relies on Rule 2 and 16(a) of the Agreement, alleging that Carrier violated said rules when the laborers from Crystal Springs moved across Supervisor's saniority lines in assisting the laborers on Section 22.
Carrier relies on past practice in support of its defense of this claim. However, here we are dealing with a clear and unambiguous rule and past practice cannot be relied on it the face of such a rule.
As was said in this Board's Award No. 16830, involving the same parties to this dispute:
"The above quoted Rule 16(a) is clear and free from ambiguity; therefore, it is not subject to more than one interpretation. It contains specified exceptions to the provisions prohibiting the transfer of employes from one seniority district to another, and this Board is without authority to infer or imply further exceptions. See Awards 2009, 5464, 18863 and 15167 of this Division."
Carrier offered no proof of "pressing" need for use of said laborers in question, and it is undisputed that the Carrier and the Organization did not agree to the transfer; thus we find Carrier violated said Rule 16(a).
In regard to damages, inasmuch as Claimants suffered no pecuniary loss, we will deny part t2) of the Statement of Claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Rail-way Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and