The facts of this case are not in dispute. Claimant is the regularly assigned occupant of Assistant Chief Clerk Position A051, at Queensgate Yard, Cincinnati, A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with rest days Saturday and Sunday. On the various dates set forth in the Claim, the payroll duties normally and routinely performed by the Claimant during his workweek were assigned on the Claimant's rest days to the incumbent of Industrial Service Clerk Position A-057.
It stands without rebuttal that the former position of Payroll Clerk A-092 was abolished on December 30, 1988, and the payroll duties were added to the Claimant's position which is a five day assignment and performed by the Claimant. Subsequently, on February 4, 1989, the Carrier assigned the payroll duties of the claimant's position on Saturday and Sunday to Industrial Service Clerk Position A-057 which is a seven day non-relief assignment with no past payroll duties.
The Board carefully reviewed the record of this case, including the Agreement language in question, as well as applicable Awards. We must conclude that given the language in question the Organization's position is more persuasive. In the instant case, the Carrier cannot overcome the fact that the Claimant's position is a five day assignment and when work is required on its rest days in accordance with Rule 35 it belongs to the regular incumbent. We are, however, in agreement with the Carrier that the punitive rate is not the appropriate compensation for work not performed. It is also clear that the work involved did not constitute a majority of the Claimant's position. Therefore, proper compensation for the violation is four hours at the straight time rate of pay for each date of violation.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.