(Brotherhood of .·2iniT.e:.an~e of :'.-ay E-mployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Hock Island and Pacific Railroad Company ( ('rT-_lliar i=. Gibbons, Trustee)

(1) The Agreement was violated when, from December 1 to December 14, 1975, "chine Operators T. P. Redmond and J. J. Hagan were required to suspend :·rork from their positions as such and :aintenance Garb Foreman Leggins was assigned to perform :chine opera to--'s o:cr__ (System File L-126-153611-0-400).

 (2) As a consecuence of the aforesaid violatior., _·schine Coerators T. P. Redmond and J. J. Hagan shall each now be allowed forty (40) hours' pay at their respective straight-time rates.

 OPL'`IION Or BOARD: Rule 1, Group 14, Paragraph- 7 provides:

The Claimants are regularly assigned Machine Ooerators within Group 14.

 Du-- irg certain times between December 1 and 14, 1 975, t= ey were instructed to susroend the .cork o-' their positions and per=or:. service as Tract Laborers. Drying L_h._e sa-.e period o:' time, a _·sintenance Gang ?oreman operated a back hoe ;3chine. Cn_ of t'groups of employes designated
The Organization maintains _=at the Claimants are Ms^c_nine Operators and 7Theanthe Carrier suspended the work of their positions, they were available v0 opera-,e the ._C=C hoe as 2 Group 14 .3Ci^_.


The Carrier contends that the Cozposite Service -Rule .)e.-Mll+-s assignments as provided in this case. however, the organization asserts that the Coumosite Service Rule does not grant authority to the Carrier to invalidate the seniority rules oz the Agreement by removing work from one seniority group to another.

 The Organization °arges that in this case the principle .oust be preserved that an employe without seniority to operate a Group 14 machine may not be utilized.

 It is understood that both Claimar_ts could not ooerate the back hoe on the same day. It is also recognized that on certain dates, the Claimants were operating their own yzchines and would not have been available to operate the back hoe. However, in some instances the senior Claimant may have been opera ting his regular machine while the junior Claimant was, in fact, available to operate the back 'floe.

 It is held that Paragraph 1 of the Claim is sustained -for the reason that the Carrier did not abide by Rule 1, Group 14, paragraph 7.

 Paragraph 2 of the Claim seeks compensation for each Claimant in the amount of 40 hours. There is no basis for this type of an award.

 It is held that the senior Claimant is entitled to the difference in the rate of pay he received for the work performed on the dates in question end the rate of pay for a Back Hoe Operator on those dates '~ihen he was not operating his regularly assigned machine and was available to o-oerate the back hoe. It is further held that the junior Claimant is entitled to receive the same measure o_' con:pensaticn on those dates ..Then. unavailable.

        FI;TDI1?GS: The Third Division of the Adjust=.eat Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the L=loyes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and F_.=ployes within the __^neaning o=' the Rail::ay Labor Act, as a=proved June 21, 1934;
                    Award =:caber 22005 -ace 3

                  Docket idirmber ~:i-2202li


That ''his Division of the ACUstment ccard has '..Lr4SdiC~Cn crier the di s_JUte in'·IClved herein; and

        That the .-26reement :,'as violated.


                  A W A a 7)


        Clai-. 1 sustained,


        Claim 2 sustained as per Opinion, supra,


                          -Z:TT_Ca_^w. RAIL-iCAD -.D.iLij_=ylll 30.~IiD

                          3y Order of Third Division


ATTEST: e,'04~

        xecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, 7_._inols, this 14th day of April 1`'-78.