Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32373
Docket No. TD-31864
97-3-94-3-176

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

(American Train Dispatchers Department/International
( Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:






Form 1 Award No. 32373
Page 2 Docket No. TD-31864
97-3-94-3-176



FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:


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.




At the time of the two claims under review here, Claimant was assigned to the Second Shift "K" Desk, with Wednesday -Thursday rest days. A vacancy existed on the First Shift "C" Desk, with Tuesday - Wednesday rest days. Claimant made application to work the vacant "C" Desk position on a hold-down, as provided in Rule 4 of the Agreement, effective Thursday, January 14, 1993. Carrier determined that she was the senior qualified applicant for the hold-down, but did not transfer her to the vacancy until January 23, 1993, the date a Guaranteed Assigned Dispatcher was available to fill Claimant's position at the straight time rate.


Carrier's refusal to transfer Grievant to the hold-down generated two claims from the Organization. The first seeks additional compensation, under Rule 12(b) for Saturday and Sunday January 16-17, 1993, because Claimant was required to work an assignment other than the one she was entitled to work on those days. The second seeks additional compensation, under Rule 4, Section 2(b) for Thursday, January 14,1993, because Claimant was not placed on a hold-down she was entitled to work.


Carrier acknowledges that Claimant was entitled to be transferred to the hold down, but says that because an extra expense would have resulted in filling her vacancy it was excused, by the explicit language of the Agreement, from effecting her immediate
Form 1 Award No. 32373
Page 3 Docket No. TD-31864
97-3-94-3-176

transfer. Carrier claims that no employees were available to fill a vacancy on Claimant's regular position at straight time rates.


The operative Rule involved in this matter is Rule 4, Section 2(a). That Rule in pertinent part reads:










Form 1 Award No. 32373
Page 4 Docket No. TD-31864
97-3-94-3-176



Rule 4, Section 2(a) in one instance excuses Carrier from placing the senior applicant on a temporary assignment if additional expense through the payment of overtime is involved, and in a second instance says that Train Dispatchers requesting a temporary assignment will do so without additional expense to the Carrier. The two provisions, fairly read, can only mean that Carrier is excused from placing the senior applicant on a temporary assignment when this would entail additional expense through the payment of the overtime rate to fill the ensuing vacancy in the applicant's regular position. In this matter Carrier has shown that Claimant's vacancy could only be filled at overtime rates. Accordingly, it did not violate the Agreement when she was not assigned to the temporary vacancy.




      Claim denied.


                          ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of December 1997.