At the relevant time, the Claimant was a Class One Machine Operator on the Youngstown Seniority District. D. L. Arner held the same position on the Cleveland Seniority District. On February 4, 1994, the Claimant was in furlough status.
On February 3, 1994, Arner moved a track stabilizer machine from Erie, Pennsylvania, to Ashtabula West Yard. That movement was within Arner's Cleveland Seniority District. On February 4,1994, Arner moved the track stabilizer between West Yard and Brier Hill Shop where it was to be repaired. The February 4,1994 movement was on trackage located within the Youngstown Seniority District.
This claim seeks eight hours for the Claimant on account of not being called to perform the transporting of the track stabilizer on February 4, 1994 on the trackage in the Youngstown Seniority District.
Arner's operation of the track stabilizer on February 3, 1994 from Erie to West Yard was appropriate because that work was performed in his Cleveland Seniority District. However, the work performed on February 4, 1994 from West Yard to Brier Shop was in the Youngstown Seniority District - a district where Arner did not hold seniority, but the Claimant did. In the past similar disputes have been sustained. See Third Division Awards 31828, 32440, 33631. Of particular note is Third Division Award 33631 quoting Third Division Award 29381:
First, the fact that Arner transported the machine into the Youngstown Seniority District and did not use the machine in that district does not change the result. The "work" performed was the transporting of the machine. Second, the fact that the Carrier may have been able to move the machine by other means (relying upon Third Division Award 30913 - an outside contractor dispute finding that transportation of equipment is not customary to the Maintenance of Way employees) also does not change the result. When the Carrier opted to use covered employees to perform the work, the seniority provisions of the Agreement came into play and the question now is whether an employee holding no seniority in the district where the work is performed could perform that work. Here, that question is resolved against the Carrier. Third, nor do we find that the Organization improperly amended the claim. This was clearly a work assignment/seniority district dispute - a theory made known to the Carrier from the inception. Finally, the Carrier's general assertion that "[als has been the longstanding practice, a Cleveland District operator was assigned to move the unit from Ashtabula to its `home district' location, Brier Hill" has not-been supported by facts to change the result.
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.