"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Machine Operators B. S. Emmerling and R. D. Collins to work extra on the on-line Tamping Gang BC15M and then failed and refused to allow then expenses as mandated under Award 298 (Carrier's File 930060 MPR.)

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above,

Messrs. B. S. Emmerling and R. D. Collins shall each be allowed

expenses as mandated by Award 298 for the period of August 18

through 30, 1992."

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

Claimants, Machine Operators, were assigned to a Surfacing Gang with a fixed headquarters. Between August 18 and August 30, 1992, Claimants operated a Brush Cutter that normally was assigned to on-line Tamping Gang BC15M. The Organization contends that Claimants were assigned to perform extra work on the on-line Tamping Gang, and used to fill Machine Operator vacancies that were under bulletin at the time. As such, it argues, they are entitled to be paid the expense allowances provided by Arbitration Award 298. Carrier contends that Claimants were not assigned to perform work with the on-line Tamping Gang. All that occurred was that the machine was temporarily assigned to Claimants' fixed headquarters Surfacing Gang, and because they did not leave the Gang they are not entitled to the expense allowances of Award 298.

This case is fact driven. If Claimants were assigned to work with the Tamping Gang they are entitled to the expense allowances provided by Award 298. If Claimants were not assigned to work with the Tamping Gang and the machine was only temporarily loaned to the Surfacing Gang, then they are not entitled to expense allowances.

Two facts tilt the case in favor of the Organization. The first is that Claimants were assigned to work on the machine during the period the on-line Tamping Gang Operator positions were vacant and under bulletin. This is a persuasive indicator that Operators were needed for the machine to do the work of the Tamping Gang. The second is that when Claimants operated the machine they were detached, up to ten miles, from the location where the remainder of the Surfacing Gang was working. This is a persuasive indicator that they were not working with the Surfacing Gang.

From these two facts, it is reasonable to conclude that Claimants were temporarily assigned to the on-line Tamping Gang. Accordingly, they are entitled to the expense allowances provided by Award 298, for the time assigned to the Tamping Gang.

The claim will be sustained.

AWARD