Alfred H, Brent, Referee


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


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


          (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned other than Track Department forces to perform the work of stripping, ballasting and surfacing the repair tracks and November 20 and 21, 1968. (System File SLN-80-T-68/Case 608).


          (2) Section Foreman S. C, Dancy, Section Laborers C. Mosley, S. Kelley, J. Bigby, J. Gettis, I, Cruse, J. H. Parks and J. C. Rice each be allowed pay at their respective straight time rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man hours consumed by other forces in performing the work referred to in Part (1


          OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that the Carrier on six occasions

          improperly assigned work of stripping, ballasting and sur

          facing track to Car Department employees at East St. Louis, Illinois, since this

          work is regularly performed by Maintenance of Way employees. Thus, the Organiza

          tion infers that the Scope Rule of their agreement was violated.


          When the case was heard on the property the Carrier contended that the work was properly assigned because it was, in fact, work connected with the renewing of the walkway not work reserved exclusively to Maintenance of Way Employees.


          However, in the submission of the Highest Officer on the property, (RP 25), it was admitted by him that the work performed did not consist of merely repairing the walkway, as alleged by the Carrier, but "A combination of decreased maintenance and the heavy rains in the fall of 1968 made the working conditions at the rip (repair) track at East St. Louis unpleasant .... New ballast was ordered and the Car Department forces removed the old grease soaked ballast and distributed new ballast in its place. At certain points in the track the rail was almost entirely submerged in w under the rail in an attempt to raise the rail above the water level."


          In the light of this admission, this Board finds that the agreement was violated as alleged by the Organization.


          This Board has repeatedly held that the parties are bound by the way the case was handled on the property, (see Awards 111939 Dorsey, #11986 Rinehart,


          412388 Englestein, 4P14879 Dorsey, 16061 Kenan, 16423 Goodman) and that the Carrier's defense is property.


. .:
                    Award Number 19722 Page 2

                    Docket Number MW-19303


The record shows no evidence of monetary loss by the Claimants. In the absence of any penalty provision in the agreement, the Board, as it has held so many times in the past, must deny the monetary portion of the claim.

 See Awards It18540 Rimer, 18373 Dorsey, 13072 Dugan, 17994 Quinn, 16693 Dugan. 15624 McGovern, 15062 Ives.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Bird, after giving the parties
 to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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 Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim #1 is sustained.


        Claim #2 is denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: AVY&4 .11
 7xecutive ecretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1973.

.~_ ·~c.~:kn