Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29112
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29048
 92-3-89-3-476
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Union Pacific Railroad Company (former :Missouri ( Pacific Railroad Company)

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier allowed an employe from outside the Scope of the Agreement to displace Machine Operator C. D. Mitchell from his regularly assigned position on April 13, 1988 (Carrier's File 880510 NPR).

 (2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof, the Claimant shall be allowed eight (8) hours' pay per day at his machine operator's rate of pay for April 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19, 1988."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 As Third Party in Interest, the International Union of Operating Engineers was advised of the pendency of this dispute and did not file a Submission with the Division.

 This Claim is a companion case to that involved in Third Division Award 29111, wherein the Board concluded that the Organization has not established that under an entitlement to work on certain items of heavy equipment which Carrier contends are to be operated Carrier and the International Union of Operating Engineers, when IUOE represented employees are avai Form 1 Award No. 29112
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29048
 92-3-89-3-476

 Claimant was removed from a machine when an IUOE represented employee became available. Carrier contends that he was displaced and it was not necessary that he be afforde its Agreement with the Organization. The original Claim of the Organization stated:

The Agreement between the Organization and the Carrier cannot be fairly read to provide that a machine operator assigned under its terms could be displaced by an employee working under a different Agreement and holding no seniority rights under the Organization's Agreement. Accordingly, Claimant's removal from the machine cannot be considered as a displacement as contended by Carrier. On the other hand, the machine was (at least constructively) transferred to Carrier's Heavy Equipment Department. Claimant's assignment as operator of the equipment, for all intents and purposes, must be considered as abolished effective with the transfer. An appropriate abolishment notice should have been provided.

 The record indicates that Claimant lost one day's pay as a result of being taken off the machine. The Claim will be sustained for one day's pay.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ve - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1992.