(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Illinois Central Railroad Company

 STATEMENT Cdr CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned B&B Foreman L. I. Galley, Jr. instead of Machine Operator B. B. Copeland to operate Burro Crane PR-39 on March 28, April 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 1969 (System File SLH-89-M-69/Case 694).

 (2) Machine Operator B. B. Copeland be allowed eighty-tb&t (88) hours' pay at the Burro Crane operator's rate because of the violation referred to in Pert (1) hereof.

 OPINION Cdr BOARD: Claim arises account Bridge and Building Foreman performing
 work allegedly accruing to employees within Group 1 of the
 foadway Machine Department. Claiammt is an employee within Iroup 1 of the Road
 way Machine Department. The claim arisen under Agreement between the parties,
 effective September 1, 1934, as ceded through June 1, 1962.

Under Rule 2 of the Agreement the Bridge and Building Department and the Roadway Machine Department are separate sub-depa.rtmenta; the employees in each sub-department have their seniority rights confined to their own sub-department. Under Rale 2(i within Group 1 of the Rosdway Machine Department.

 On the claim dahes the Carrier caused a burro crane to be operated by a Bridge and Building Foreman, who held no seniority within the Roadway Machine Department. At the time the claiment was under pay at a higher rate than the burro crane operator's rate.

 Under date of September 10, 1969, the General Chairman wrote as follows to the Engineer Maintenance of Way:



              The claim" is employed in the Groan 1 classification and the man that operated this machine is not employed in the Group 1 classification. The claimant was ready and willing to perform this service an overtime and he did have a loss in earnings by not being allowed to perform this work in accordance with his seniority. It is requested that this claim be allowed."


        In a April 23, 1970 letter Carrier's Manager of Labor Relations stated that: "You have not cited any provision in the Agreement which reserves the operation of burr


                          COHTUITI011S OF PARTIES


        Petitioner contends the Agreement was violated when the Bridge end Building Foreman performed work accruing to a Group 1 employee and that claimant suffered loss of wo he would have received if he had performed the work.


        Carrier contends the Organization failed to cite any rule as being violated and that the work could not be assigned to overtime '-ecause the work was needed in rebuilding a bridge. Carrier also asserts there is no basis for a monetary award because claimant was under pay during claim period.


                              RESOLUTION


        Virtually these same issues were dealt with in Award 18808 (Devine), which involved the same agreement and these same parties. In that Award the Carrier made essentially the same contentions that are made here, namely, that the claim should be denied because of the lack of citation of a specific rule as being violated and because of the impossibility of scheduling the disputed work to be performed by employees to whom it accrued.


              In rejecting these contentions in Award 18908, the Board stated:


              "The General Chairman as specific in mating the reason for the claim and the specific amount claimed. The Carrier could not have been misled.

              There is no showing that the work was of an emergency nature or that it could not have been scheduled in a manner that it could be performed by Agreement-covered employee. See Awards 12671, 13832, 14061, 14621, and 15497. The claim will be sustained."


        We find no reason herein to depart from Award 18508 and we shall sustain the claim.


rt~::u~ r
                Award Number 19519 Page 3

                Docket Number NP-19453


        FINDIIjGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record acid all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the ilnployes involved in this dispute arc respectively Carrier and E?:ployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A $ D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIOKAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIEa^i 1:OAED

                          By Order of 'Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December 1972.