The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to pay Claimant D. L. Plagmann his five (5) percent production incentive bonus in accordance with Section 5A of the August 12, 1999 Agreement. (System File GPB-209-H/11-00-0166 BNR).

(2) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to pay Claimant A. A. Sailer his five (5) percent production incentive bonus in accordance with Section 5A of the August 12, 1999 Agreement. (System File GPB-210-H/11-00-0167).

(3) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Carrier shall now `...make immediate payment of 5% of Claimant's earnings, as required by the Agreement, for the time of September 12, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Since the Carrier has improperly withheld this payment from claimant, we further request that claimant receive interest on the amount of money he is owed, at 8% per annum, compounded monthly beginning thirty calendar days after December 31,1999.'

rn..,-;.... ..hull a ..1.., ...l:..a., ..a ..e MO/ ..r

~.paaal.a J11"11 now ...1J~A~G fl%111aGUILU.C PU.YIllellt UI J/O Ul

Claimant's earnings, as required by the Agreement, for the time of September 12, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Since the Carrier has improperly withheld this payment from claimant, we further request that claimant receive interest on the amount of money he is owed, at 8% per annum, compounded monthly beginning thirty calendar days after December 31, 1999.11'

Thn Third 11ilricin» of *ho A 17;_c*m.art* 12n._-d .,n*, *hn ..,hnln ~en,-A n~A nll *hn

~ .... ~...a...~...o..,....a ...._ < w ~uomam,am.vvamv, ulsvaa wl. wnvm. awav uaau saga laaa.

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.

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

The two claims in this case filed by Vice General Chairman A. R. Hohbein on

eeny crew until the crew was aounsneu on October a, i9yy. Boot Claimants displaced to a consolidated district mobile gang on October 11, 1999, the next work day. There was no break in service. The Claimants remained assigned to that gang through the end of 1999 and both were displaced in January 2000.

The Organization contends that the Claimants should have received a 5% production incentive for the period of September 12 through December 31, 1999 in accordance with Section 5A of the August 12. 1999 Agreement. which nrnvidPC·

"Each employee assigned to any district mobile gang who does not leave the gang voluntarily for a period of at least six (6) months shall

06-3-02-3-193 be entitled to a lump sum payment annually equal to S% off his/her

nnmonncafinn nnvnnrl l177Yi71n *hn nnlnnrlnv rrnnv nn that rtnna* C,.nh

....... 1 , .,r.,r ,u v.rrruf, rr., a.ura.uvs.a Ja.ua vaa uaua Saaras. ~w,u

compensation shall not exceed $1,000 and shall be paid within 30 days of the completion of the employee's service on the gang; for mobile gangs not required to be disbanded each year, payment will be made within 30 days of the completion of each calendar year. If the company disbands the gang in less than six months, the company will be responsible for payment of the production incentive earned as of that date."

"The Production Incentive Bonus outlined in Section SA will be effective September 12, 1999 and apply to all employees working on any district mobile position."

During the course of further on-property handling, the Carrier notified the

However, the correspondence produced by the Carrier in support of its position raises more questions than answers. It must be remembered that the instant claim for Claimant Sailer was filed on February 11, 2000 by Vice General Chairman Hohbein, yet a March 24, 2000 letter from the Carrier refers to a claim filed on March 2, 2000 by Vice General Chairman Weyrauch on Claimant Sailer's behalf. Although the Carrier's letter states that compensation for a production incentive bonus was paid, it appears to reference an entirely different claim.

By the same token, the Carrier's May 1, 2000 letter regarding Claimant Plagmann does not correspond to the instant claim. Instead, it references payment

06-3-02-3-193 of a production incentive bonus for the period January 1 through January 24, 2000 - a time fr'a71t~ di frnm iho n.,o ~* ; ., s h- _

______ _ _ -. , a a ..ua, vaaa. saa a~aiie iaa aaaaa a.aac.

On the basis of this record, we must conclude that the Organization established a violation of Section 5A of the August 12, 1999 Agreement. We further and that the Carrier failed to refute the Organization's prima facie case with probative evidence.

The Organization requests interest on the payment for the bonuses involved. We are not prepared to state that interest may not be awarded in any case under any circumstance. However, on this record, the Board is inclined to follow the clear weight of authority and deny the Organization's request for an interest penalty. As stated in Third Divicinn Award 17S(16.

". . . Even though a demand for interest is not illogical and is allowed in some arbitration settings, the weight of authority is to the couu ary in erection 33 arbitration tribunals. (See, for example, Third Division Awards 24710, 20014, 18633 and 18464). In the absence of an Agreement Rule or practice to the contrary, and in the face of the authoritative precedents, there is no proper basis on which to sustain this claim for the requested interest payment . . . ."

AWARD