"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11044) that:

(1) Carrier violated the effective agreement when it failed to properly compensate Extra Clerk R. H. Bowles the lump sum payment owed him pursuant to Article 11, Part A, Section 2, of the June 1, 1991 National .agreement.

(2) Carrier shall now compensate Extra Clerk R.H. Bowles the difference between what he was paid, $836..10, and the full 51,025.00 which was due him pursuant to said Agreement."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Article II, Part .a. Section 2. Second Lump Sum Cost-of-Living Payment reads in pertinent part as follows:

"Subject to Sections 6 and 7, employees with 1,000 or more straight time hours paid for (not including any such hours reported to the ICC as constructive allowances except vacations, holidays, paid sick leave and guarantees in protective agreements or arrangements) during the period April 1, 1992 through September 30 1993, will receive a lump sum payment on January 1, 1992 equal to [S1,0251 . . .."

The Claimant herein, an Extra Clerk, is acknowledged to have worked and been paid for 1,000 or more straight-time hours during the applicable period. The Carrier, however, paid him a pro rata share (S836.40) because the Claimant was assigned a portion of his time to a so-called "T" position (Excepted or Partially Excepted Position). Holders of "T" positions are compensated in a different manner and eligible for benefits varying from those available to Clerics; they are not eligible for the lump sum payment. The Carrier reasoned that the Claimant should not be entitled to the higher pay he received in a temporary "T" assignment as well as the Lump Sum Allowance applicable to other employees.

The Claimant was not regularly assigned by bid or otherwise to a "T" position. His classification throughout the period was that of Extra Clerk. Article II, Part A unqualifiedly states that employees with the required hours of work and pay "will receive a lump sum payment." N othing is mentioned as to the type of work assigned (as long, of course, as the employee retains a permanent classification in the covered unit, which is the case here). He received a higher rate of pay for his temporary assignments, obviously because of the higher responsibility. There is no basis for this to deny him the lump sum payment based on his total hours worked.

AWARD