NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION


Award No. 30022

 Docket No. SG-30713
 94-3-92-3-500

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad signalmen

 (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Chesapeake (and Ohio Railway Company)



Claim reads as follows:

 Statement of Claim:

 CASE No. 1



R.M. Roe 618900
 O.R. Os borne 624872
 J.R. Patrick 628910

 Leading Signal Maintainer
 Signal Maintainer
 Signal Maintainer
 Form 1 Award No. 30022
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-30713
 94-3-92-3-500

      Statement of Claim:


          (a) Carrier violated the parties' Schedule Agreement, as amended particularly Rule 34 - Seniority Districts - Limits, when on or about Monday, May 14, 1990 Carrier required or otherwise allowed Signal employees from the Russell seniority district to cross over the Ashland seniority district line located at Mile Post 0.75 as referenced in Rule 34 to perform non-emergency signal work without notice or negotiations pursuant to Rule 68.


          (b) As a consequence of the above violation, Carrier be required to compensate Claimants named below at their applicable rate of pay for all time including overtime, if any, employees of the Russell seniority district performed non-emergency work on the Ashland seniority district, due to a loss of earning and work opportunity:


      Name CSXT ID No. Force No. Position Assigned


      J.R. Ward 618618 7615 Leading Sig. Maintainer

      C.D. Brown 625452 7615 Signal Maintainer

      A.R. Tackett 626886 7615 Signal Maintainer

      W. D. Chapman 617639 7641 Leading Sig. Maintainer

      B.O. Chapman 617315 7641 Signal Maintainer

      C. L. Warnock 622888 7641 Signal Maintainer"


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 employe 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.

 This dispute consists of two claims which are similar in nature; the only differences being the dates, locations, and
 Form 1 Award No. 30022
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-30713
                                            94-3-92-3-500


identity of the Claimants. In Case No. 1, the Carrier used Russell seniority District signal employees to perform work on the Cincinnati Seniority District between May 1 and 10, 1990. In Case No. 2, the Carrier used Russell Seniority District signal employees to perform work on the Ashland Seniority District between May 14 and 23, 1990. The work performed by the Russell employees in each of these cases involved working with undercutting operations.


The Carrier asserts it was privileged to move the Russell employees to other seniority districts. It first cites Rule 36 - Temporarily Transferred, which reads as follows:


          "Employees temporarily transferred by direction of the management from one seniority district to another, will retain their seniority rights on the district from which transferred. Except for temporary service, employees will not be transferred to another seniority district unless they so desire."


According to the Carrier, this Rule recognizes its right to temporarily transfer employees from one district to another. The Carrier further states an emergency condition existed because it did not have sufficient employees on the Cincinnati or Ashland Districts to perform this work. It has bulletined vacancies, but either got inadequate or no responses. Finally, the Carrier says the work performed by the Russell employees was necessary to avert emergencies.


The Organization, on the other hand, relies upon Rule 34 - seniority District - Limits, which reads in part as follows:


          11(a) Seniority rights of employees will extend over the territory comprising a seniority district except as provided in section (d) of this Rule and by Rule 43. The seniority districts and their limits are as follows:"


First of all, the Board rejects any suggestion that an emergency existed. An emergency, by defin performing preventive maintenance may well prevent emergencies, this does not cause us to characterize this as emergency work. If the Carrier's argument had validity, all maintenance work on the right-of-way would be considered emergency work.


We also do not find support for the Carrier's argument in Rule 36. That Rule merely states how an employee's seniority might be affected by working off of his or her seniority district. It does

Form 1 Award No. 30022
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-30713
                                            94-3-92-3-500


not provide the vehicle for moving the employee, nor does it address how the employee is to be compensated. The Carrier is constrained in its movement of employees by Rule 34. The establishment of seniority districts means employees must protect and have the right to protect all work within their district and cannot be moved beyond their district. To get around this Rule, the Carrier must be able to rely upon something more specific than Rule 36.


As the Carrier has not shown it had the right to use the Russell District employees in either the Cincinnati or Ashland Seniority Districts, the employees of those districts had the exclusive right to perform the work which is the subject of these claims. The Agreement, therefore, was violated, and the claims are sustained.


                        A W A R D


      Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


Attest:-cue'---~5
 Catherine Loughrin -/Interim secretary to the Board

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of January 1994.