Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29381
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29154
 92-3-90-3-5
 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:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Youngstown Division employes from the Undercutter Support Gang instead of Pittsburgh Division employes to perform track maintenance work on the Pittsburgh Division from September 6, 1988 through September 29, 1988 (System Docket NW-181).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, the Pittsburgh Division employes assigned to Gang SE 222 shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for ten (10) hours a day·beginning September 6, 1988 and continuing through September 29, 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.

In this dispute, which is but one of several docketed with this Division involving this Organization and Carrier on the same basic issue, employees from one seniority district were utilized for 16 days, ten hours each day, performing work on an adjoining district because of insufficient personnel in the district where the work was required. Prior to utilization of employees to work on the short handed district, Carrier sought the assistance of an Organization the district so that they may have been recalled for the work. These efforts were without success. Carrier contends that its actions deprived no one of work, as each Claimant was on duty and under pay. It maintains that the situation in this case is, thus, analogous to a similar dispute resolved in
 Form 1 Award No. 29381
 Page 2 Docket No. KW-29154
 92-3-90-3-5

 Third Division Award 28889, involving the same parties, the same Rules, and a like situation. In that Award, the Board found a violation of the Agreement occurred but, declined to require any monetary payments as there was no proven cognizable loss causally traceable to the violation of the Agreement.

 The Organization argues that Award 28889 erred when it failed to require monetary payments and insists that it is out of step with prior holdings of this Board, some of which involved the very same parties. It filed a lengthy Dissent to Award 28889, pointing out the mistakes it perceived were in the decision. It stressed in the Dissent and here, that the better reasoned decisions of this Board require monetary payments when employees from one seniority district are used on a different seniority district, thus depriving employees of the s valuable work opportunities.

 Notwithstanding the conclusions reached in Award 28889, this Board notes that a number of Awards o= this Board and Special Boards of Adjustment which have required monetary payments in established cases where employees of one seniority district were used to perform work in a different seniority district. The rational behind these decisions is that bringing employees from one district to work in another district deprives employees with seniority rights in the district where the work is performed of contractually secured work opportunities. If the Carrier is permitted to move employees from one district to another, without payment to the employees deprived of the work opportunity, the seniority provisions, mutually developed by the parties and written into their Agreement, is vitiated.

 While there are a number of citations, involving this Carrier and this Organization, which could be referenced on these points, one seems particularly appropriate. In Award 41, SBA No. 1016, the Board held that:
Form 1 Award No. 29381
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29154
 92-3-90-3-5

 Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the Board must conclude that Award 41, SBA No. 1016 Award 28889. Award 28889 cannot be accepted as authoritative precedent. Award 41 details the correct application of the Agreement and the requirement that payments must be made to Claimants who lost work opportunities when Carrier utilized employees from a different seniority district for the performance of work on their district. The Claim will be sustained.






Attest:
        ancy J. - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1992.