was recognized as a third party at interest, and that Organization filed a submission with the Board.

The Claim of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes is fully encompassed in its Submission as follows:

"Beginning on January 4, 1988, the Carrier required mechanical repair and maintenance work to be performed on machinery assigned to Maintenance of Way Department Surfacing Force SM89 while it was working between Mile Post 0.0 and Mile Post 173 on the [Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company] property. Instead of assigning the Claimants to perform this work, the Carrier assigned four (4) mechanics . . . represented by the international Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) who hold no seniority whatsoever under the BMWE Agreement. In fact, said IAM mechanics hold no seniority under any agreement in effect on the A&WP. Their seniority was established under Agreements between the IAM and other CSX properties (L&N, B&O, C&O, etc.) The IAM mechanics expended eight (8) hours each regular work day and significant amounts of overtime performing the above described repair and maintenance work."

The Claim listed dates and specific hours for work allegedly performed by the IAM employees. According to the Carrier, the work was performed on Plasser Continuous Action Tamper Machines.

The Board finds ample merit in the organization's contention that the work belongs to its employees and that there is no contractual basis for assigning the work to IAM employees under applicable A&WP Agreements.

The principal issues involved is the amount of work actually involved and the Carrier's contention that no monetary remedy is appropriate since the Claimants were otherwise on duty. As to the latter point, there are certain situations where the working status of claimants may be a bar to monetary remedy. Here, however, the Board does not find this to be so, given the assignment of work to employees not contractually entitled to the work. Numerous previous Awards, some of which are cited by the Organization, support this view.

As to the amount of time involved, the record shows that the Carrier was provided full opportunity to dispute the specific number of hours listed in the Claim. The Board notes that the Carrier contends that one or more of the IAM employees served only

As to remedy, the Board directs that the Carrier shall have the opportunity to promptly provide payroll information demonstrating to the Organization's satisfaction the specific number of hours involved in actual performance of the work, which shall then be awarded to the Claimants. Failing this, the Claim will be sustained as presented.

A W A R D