"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Southern District Gang Z-010 employe K. Jones to perform welding work on the Northern District territory on January 6, 2008 (Carrier's File NEC-BMWE-SD-4748 AMT).

(2) As a consequence of the violations referred to in Part (1) above, Northern District Welder Claimant C. Kobierowski shall now be compensated for eleven (11) hours at his respective time and onehalf rate of pay."

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 claim, dated February 18, 2008, alleges that the Carrier violated Rule 10 (Seniority) Rule 14 (Seniority Districts) and Rule 55 (Preference for Overtime Work) when it assigned a Southern District employee to perform thermite welding on the Northern District at Mile Post 129, Track 1 instead of assigning the work to a Thermite Welder on the Northern District such as the Claimant.

The progression of the claim on the property reveals it was processed in the usual and customary manner, including placement before the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle it. Following a conference discussion on November 6, 2008, the claim is now properly before the Board for adjudication.

There is no dispute that the overtime work involved here was performed on the Northern District by an employee from the Southern District. In other words, the work was performed by an employee without any seniority on the Northern District. The Carrier's position - the Claimant was not available for overtime because he worked his regularly assigned tour (10:00 P.M. - 6:30 A.M.) on January 6, 2008 - does not insulate it from applying Rules 10, 14 and 55. Specifically, Rule 14(f) provides that when the Carrier requires Track Department thermite welding work within the geographical boundaries of a seniority district, the work will be assigned to an employee holding a position within that seniority district. Exceptions to Rule 14 are not present in this instance.

The Board follows Third Division Awards 5413, 4667, 24480 and 24576 holding that work accruing to employees within a seniority district must be reserved for employees holding seniority on that district and cannot be assigned to an employee from another district. The Carrier did not assign the disputed work to an employee with seniority on the Northern District.

The claim, moreover, is not overcome because the Claimant was employed on the claim date (January 6, 2008). The Carrier's decision to use an out-of-district employee represents a loss of work opportunity within the Claimant's seniority district and, in this circumstance, a monetary remedy is appropriate consistent with the rationale set forth in Third Division Award 19840.

AWARD