The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
From June 4 through 15, 1991 and from July 16, 1991 through August 6, 1991, the Carrier assigned forces of System Bridge Gang (South) 9330 to perform maintenance work on Bridge 370.7 near Benton, Arkansas and on June 18 continuing through July 5, 1991, System Bridge Gang (South) 9330 performed maintenance work on Bridge 596.5 near Alexandria, Louisiana.
The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of members of the System Bridge Gang (North) 9331. The organization argued that the "routine maintenance work" at issue should have been assigned to Gang 9331 and not Gang 9330 which holds no seniority on the System Bridge Gang North Seniority District.
The Carrier denied the claim contending that the North Gang was working on a major rehabilitation project on the Memphis Subdivision that would last until the end of 1992. Instead of pulling the North Gang off their project, the South Gang was brought across seniority boundaries to perform "pressing" bridge repair work near Benton, Arkansas. As for the work performed near Alexandria, Arkansas, the Carrier contended that that work was of an emergency nature when heavy rains caused flooding and washouts. In addition, the Carrier contended that the work performed near Alexandria was at the 11... southernmost point on the 'North' seniority territory."
This Board has reviewed the record in this case and we find that the Organization has presented sufficient evidence to support its claim that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned the wrong forces to perform the work during the period in question. There is absolutely no evidence of any emergency in this record which might justify the Carrier's actions in this case. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the work involved was performed on the Claimants seniority district by employees who held no seniority in this district. This was not a temporary transfer situation. Form 1 Award No. 31228
With respect to the remedy, the fact that there may have been full employment is not a bar to monetary remedy in these types of cases. See Third Division Awards 30408, 30409, 30283, and 30076.
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.