In September 1998, clerical employee S. Slinkard, ("Claimant"), was regularly assigned to Train Reporting Position No. 6666 in the Service Support Center in Fort Worth, Texas, with assigned rest days of Tuesday and Wednesday. The Carrier gave the Claimant timely notice, in accordance with Rule 34 of the Agreement, that it was changing the rest days of Position No. 6666 to Thursday and Friday, effective Monday, September 14,1998. Rather than accept these changed rest days on Position No. 6666, the Claimant thereupon timely submitted a 36-hour advance written notice to the Carrier that he was exercising his seniority rights to displace a junior employee on a different position, effective September 26, 1998.
Position No. 6666 was bulletined, showing the new rest days, and was assigned to employee M. Edwards. However, M. Edwards was held in his former position until October 23, 1998, to train his replacement on the position he held prior to bidding to Position No. 6666. As a consequence, the Carrier required the Claimant to continue working Position No. 6666, taking the rest days he did not desire to take, until October 23, 1998, when M. Edwards was released to take Position No. 6666 and the Claimant was released to take the position to which he served timely notice of displacement, effective September 26,1998.
On October 4, 1998, the instant claim was submitted on "a continuing basis," beginning September 26, 1998, and continuing until such time as the Carrier released the Claimant and allowed him to work the position he displaced upon due to the change in his assigned rest days. In short, the time period covered by the claim is September 26, 1998 through October 23, 1998. The language of Rule 34 which governs this case reads in pertinent part as follows:
The plain language which appears in Rule 34.C has been the subject of authorartative interpretation by the Board in Third Division Award 22220, which cited and reconfirmed the precedent value of Third Division Awards 12224 and 12459. We are persuaded that the language of Rule 34.C, inclusive of the arbitrable gloss from these authorartative precedent decisions supports a decision that the Carrier violated the Agreement in the facts and circumstances presented on this record. Although we sustain the Organization's Rule 34.C violation, we are persuaded of the correctness of the Carrier's position, advanced on the property, that the monetary claim for eight hours' pay each day of the claim period September 26 - October 23, 1998, in addition to the compensation the Claimant received for working position No. 6666 is excessive.
Rather, the appropriate compensatory damages for the proven violation is for the Carrier to compensate the Claimant for the period September 26, 1998 through October 23,1998, in an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the rate of pay for Position No. 6666 and the rate of pay for the position to which he served notice of displacement, effective September 26, 1998; plus an amount equal to the difference between the overtime rate and the straight time rate of Position No. 6666, for each hour of work which he performed on the former Tuesday and Wednesday rest days of Position No. 6666. Form 1 Award No. 36394
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.