Position No. 159 marked off sick. Claimant was first out on the GXB, rested, available and qualified to protect the vacancy on Position No. 159. Instead of calling Claimant, Carrier diverted a Clerk on a vacation relief training assignment to protect the position in question.

Claimant filed a claim for the time he did not work on March 3, 1992. In its denial of that claim the Carrier acknowledged that Claimant should have been called, but pointed out that Claimant

. worked 4 days and he was paid 1 day guarantee for not working under the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement for the week of March 2, 1992." Thus, he incurred no monetary loss and was entitled to no relief.

Carrier maintains that awarding a day, s pay to Claimant constitutes a penalty payment -- "windfall" compensation. In support of that position, it cites Public Law Board No. 3314, Award 11. In a case similar to the instant matter, that Board found that, where no damages are suffered, no monetary award is appropriate, "... absent a clear showing of a wilful and malicious breach of the contract." In this case, the Organization provided unrefuted evidence that no fewer than eleven identical claims involving unassigned and GXB employees on the Florence, South Carolina, property are currently pending. This Board feels that such evidence meets the standard set forth by the above-mentioned Board -- to wit, "... wilful ... breach of the contract." Accordingly, the instant claim is sustained as presented.

AWARD