The Carrier cites to Referee Edwin H. Benn's decision regarding the per diem allowance in Public Law Board No. 7156, Award 6 as controlling in the instant matter. Referee Benn's decision provides, in pertinent part:

"Claimant was assigned to Gang 9178 working an alternative work period. Claimant's position on Gang 9178 was abolished at the end of his tour on September 23, 2002, which was the last working day of that gang's compressed half work schedule. Claimant then exercised his seniority and displaced to a position on Gang 9179. The two online gangs worked the same alternative work period schedules. Claimant began working on Gang 9179 on October 1, 2002 - the first workday available to him on that gang.

`Rule 36 (b)(1) provides:

Employees who are assigned headquarters of "on-line" (without outfit cars) will be allowed a daily per diem allowance equal to that paid under Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 to help defray expenses for lodging and meals subject to the qualifying provisions of section (b)(2) of this Rule.'

The clear language of Rule 36(b)(1) requires that this claim be denied. Rule 36(b)(1) states that `[e]mployees who are assigned headquarters of `on-line' (without outfit cars) will be allowed a daily per diem allowance . . . .' [emphasis added]. When Claimant's position on Gang 9178 was abolished on September 23, 2002, he was no longer `assigned' to that gang. Similarly, Claimant was not `assigned' to Gang 9179 until October 1, 2002.

By clear language of Rule 36(b)(1) employees must be `assigned' to an on-line gang to receive the per diem benefit. Because Claimant was not assigned to any gang during the period from the time of the abolishment of his position on Gang 9178 on September 23, 2002 until he began his assignment on Gang 9179 on October 1, 2002,

In the instant matter, Claimant's position on the on-line gang ended when he completed working three days on Gang 9174 following his displacement from Gang 9173. He was entitled to the per diem for that three day period and the record indicates that he was paid the per diem for these three days on Gang 9174. The Claimant was not assigned to Gang 9173 following his displacement and the Organization does not, and cannot, argue that the Claimant was assigned to Gang 9174 following his three days of work on that gang. Following completion of work on November 11, 2005, the Claimant was not assigned to an on-line gang. He became assigned when he reported to Gang 9115 on November 15, 2005. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the per diem payment for rest days because he was not assigned during that period.

The Carrier also cites to Referee Benn's decision regarding the per diem allowance in Public Law Board No. 7156, Award 7. Referee Benn compared the decision of Award 6. In Award 6, the Claimant's gang was abolished and he displaced an employee on another gang. In Award 7, the Claimant exercised his seniority from one gang to another. Under the analysis of those Awards, neither distinction suggests a different result. Whether the position was abolished or whether the Claimant exercised seniority to move, the employees were not "assigned" within the meaning of Rule 36. They were not entitled to the per diem for the period between assignments.

The Carrier also cites to Referee Benn's decision regarding the travel allowance in Public Law Board No. 7156, Award 7 as controlling in the instant matter. In that Award the Claimant was working an on-line gang assignment in Oklahoma. He exercised seniority and bid to a gang working an alternative work schedule in Missouri. The Claimant ceased working the on-line gang on September 13, 2002 and returned to his home in Kansas and remained there on September 14 and 15. He reported to the Missouri gang on September 16 - the beginning of that gang's work cycle.

(07-3-10)