PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company that:

 The Carrier violated the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 30, when:

 (a) On April 27, 1971, at Savage, Maryland, signal equipment was put in service by signal employes from Baltimore West End Seniority District without the signal employes from Baltimore East End Seniority District being properly notified and asked to perform this work.

 (b) Carrier should now compensate the following for all hours worked straight time and overtime by Baltimore West End signal employes, making a total of 10~ hours at time and one-half rate of pay and 8 hours at straight-time rate of pay.

 Kermit L. DeBoard Signal Foreman ID 1105632
 Glen Hinsdale Leading Signal Maintainer ID 1105980
 Victor Stigile Signalman ID 1105981
 G. W. Founds Signalman ID 1105966
 G. C. Morrison Assistant Signalman ID 1105626

 (Carrier's File: 2-SG-50)

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is in behalf of members of Signal Force 1611
 who hold seniority on the Baltimore East End Seniority District. They assert that the Signalmen's Agreement was violated, particularly Rule 30 thereof, whe district by Signalmen from another seniority district. The disputed work was performed on April 27, 1971 when Signal Employees from the Baltimore West End Seniority District made a signal equipment cut-over in the JessupSavage area of Maryland. T The West District Signal Force, consisting of six members, consumed 18'k hours, including travel time, in making the cut-over. On the date of the cut-over at Savage, the Claimants were working approximately 125 miles away at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Each Claimant, except the Foreman of the force, worked overtime on the claim date.


There is no dispute that under Rule 30 the East End and the West End of the Baltimore Division are separate Seniority Districts. Also the Carrier concedes in its Submission that it met its service requirements on the claim date by "borrowing" for a day a signal force from another territory. The Carrier asserts, however, that the Claimants were working on a major project which was so urgent that no employees could be spared therefrom and that Claimants had been declining overtime which was being offered to them at Philadelphia.

 In reviewing the foregoing, and the whole record, it becomes clear that the Carrier concedes that it used employees from one seniority district to perform work on another seniority district. The Carrier's justification is that it was important to have the cut-over at Savage performed on the claim date and that, in order to achieve that objective, the Carrier had the limited options of having the East End employees travel 125 miles from Philadelphia to Savage, or having the West End employees travel a much shorter distance to Savage. The considerations which made the latter option more desirable from the Carrier's operational viewpoint are obvious. However, the Carrier has pointed to no agreement language which provides that such considerations may be used to justify the transfer of work from one seniority district to another. We find none and consequently, on the instant record, we conclude that the Carrier's use of the West End employees violated the agr further conclude that such violation deprived the Claimants of an opportunity to perform work secured to them by agreement, and thus the Carrier's assertion that most of the Clai and declined overtime during the claim period is no defense. The Claimants are the employees who would have performed the work if the agreement had been followed; by a conscious decision of the Carrier, the Agreement was not followed and thus the Claima loss of their work-opportunity. See Award Number 13832 for a similar ruling where signal work, relating to installation of a hot box detector, was transferred by the Carrier ac too small to move camp cars to the work site and because the distance was too great to travel by truck.







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;

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






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of December 1974.
            DISSE77P OF CAh37ER 1· :L= S' TO AUARD 1;0. 20;62 -

            DGC= r·o. SG-20039 - (qEFEI^ UACfas=)


The claimants in this case were working on a major and urgent project at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Each of the claimants, with the exception of Foreman DeBoard, worked their eight hour tour of duty, plus approximately three hours' overtime on the cute of claim. foreman Ek-Board worked only the eight hour tour of duty, electing not to perform overtime.

 These came claimants were listed in another dispute before this Board seeking additional co.aoensaLion for ·aork not performed at Philadelphia, Pennsyl vania. This is a douole-barrel approach end evidently they are looking for every opportunity to penalize the Carrier for their own personal monetary gain.

        Me Award states:


            ~~# * *- The Claimants are the employees who would have perfor-ned the work if the a_7reement had been followed; ' * * thus the Claimants are entitlcd to a compensatory award for the loss of their work-opportunity. * * *"


4lhat loss? There was no loss. The Agreement does not provide for payment vnder such circwnstances and if the Agreement had been followed in this case there woul be no corpersato=-y award.

 They were not deprived of anything. The measure of damages for breach of agreement is actual loss necessarily incurred by the injvred party. This Boar has no jurisdiction. to create penalties.

        Therefore, we must vigorously dissent to this erroneous award.


                            H. F. M. Braidwood


                            P. C. Carter


W. F. Luker

 G. L. Naylor
            I


G. Pi. Youhn~