Prior to August 19, 1991, the carrier received a request from Mr. M. F. Loeffler, Jr. for an assignment near his home since his wife was close to giving birth to their child. The Carrier obliged Mr. Loeffler's request and assigned him to operate a weed mower in the San Antonio Yard.

The Organization took exception to the use of an employee who held no seniority as a machine operator to perform machine operator work, and filed the instant claim on behalf of Claimant who held seniority as a machine operator and who was on furlough during the period in question. The organization contended that the Claimant was fully qualified and available to operate the weed mower had the Carrier afforded him the opportunity to do so.

The Carrier denied the claim alleging that it assigned Mr. Loeffler to operate the weed mower as a "favor to Mr. Lewis", the General Chairman, who had put in the request for Mr. Loeffler to be assigned close to home.

This Board has reviewed the record in this case and we find that the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Mr. Loeffler to perform the machine operator's work in the San Antonio Yard. A thorough analysis of the record makes it clear that employee Loeffler was allowed to work in the San Antonio Yard at the specific request of his General Chairman. Mr. Loeffler's wife was expecting a baby and he had requested the opportunity to work closer to home.

The Organization contended that its request was only that Mr. Loeffler occupy a helper position and that he never agreed to the Carrier having Mr. Loeffler operate a mowing machine. However, the record is clear that a job was created for Mr. Loeffler solely at the request of the Organization. The Carrier had to make use of Mr. Loeffler in that newly created position, all of which was done as a favor to the General Chairman and to Mr. Loeffler. Consequently, the Organization really has no basis to complain about the type of work that was performed by Mr. Loeffler. We find no violation of the Agreement in the assignment made by the Carrier at the request of the General Chairman.

This claim was filed on behalf of a furloughed machine operator. However, there was no violation that entitled that furloughed machine operator to any relief here. Therefore, the claim must be denied.

AWARD