_Claim of the System Committee of the Union (GL-10878) that:

File No. 281-628-NAB-19

(1) Carrier violated the Clerks Agreement on January 25, 1992, when it failed to properly compensate an employe for service rendered.

(2) Carrier shall now compensate Clerk K.J. Dahm, Dubuque, Iowa, the difference between the pro rata rate that he was paid, and the pro rata rate he should have been paid for service rendered on the claimed date, a difference of $21.12."

An initial claim was filed on February 15, 1992, for the difference between the pro rata rate of a Class III Yard Clerk rate of pay and the pro rata rate of the Transportation Assistant (TA) Position, a difference of $ 2.64 per hour. The claim requested a total of $21.12 for work performed by the Claimant on January 25, 1992.

The Claimant is an unassigned extra employee at Dubuque, Iowa, who was called for work on January 25, 1992.

The organization contends that the only assigned position at Dubuque at the time was the Transportation Assistant (TA) position. The Organization contends that the Claimant was called because the TA was on leave on January 25. The Claimant was required to perform all of the duties normally performed by the Transportation Assistant. Thus, the Organization argues, the Carrier violated Rules 4 and 21 when it compensated the Claimant at a lower rate than that of a Transportation Assistant.

The Carrier has not denied the assertion that the regularly assigned Transportation Assistant was on leave on the day in question. The Carrier does argue, however, that on the day in question the Claimant performed only the duties of an extra clerical position (Pay Class III) and was not entitled to the pay of the TA.position. In this regard, the Carrier notes that a TA position is classified as a Pay Class V position, which covers those jobs which are performed "in an environment on, in, or about railway equipment." Moreover, the TA position is exempt from Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, and 25, unlike the Pay Class III extra position.

This Board has held that, absent a contractual exception, an employe who is used in relief work is entitled to receive compensation of the position to which assigned. Despite the Carrier's argument to the contrary, neither Rule 4 nor Rule 21 is vague. On January 25, 1992, the Claimant was called to perform the service of the TA in that employee's absence and the Rules require that the rate of pay shall be the rate of the position on which the service is performed (Rule 21 (c)).

A O A R D