r -



                      Public Law Board No. 2778


      PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

      D IITUTE : and

      Baltimore and'Ohio Railroad Company

      STATEMENT 1. Carrier violated the current Schedule Agreement -

      OF

      CLAIM: when claimant, a machine operator, was assigned

      to operate other than his awarded position and was

      not called to assist in repairs of his Crane BC-3

      on October 29, 1978, but instead junior Machine

      Operator Dubensky was used to perform these duties.

      2. Carrier shall compensate claimant for 91 hours

      at the appropriate rate of pay as a Class "A" Opera

      ator for such violations.

      FINDINGS: On October 29, 1978, Machine Operator Dubensky was

      called to assist in repairs to Crane BC-3; in per

      forming that work, he received 91 hours overtime.

      He had operated that crane from October 18 through

      27, 1978.

      Mr. Dubensky is junior to claimant in point of serv-

      ice. Claimant had been operating the crane prior to October 18,

      1978, but had been taken off it during the October 18 through 27

' .2 77 S - 7
 period and placed on other machines because of his greater familiar
 ity with the operation of those machines. Mr. Dubensky was placed
 on the BC-3 crane because he was not so familiar with the machines
 that claimant was called upon to handle.
 Rule 18 (b) reads as follows:

 "Where work is required' by Management to be performed on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise not have 40 hours of work that week; in all other cases by the regular employe." In Petitioner's view, claimant is "the regular employe" and therefore is entitled to the overtime work in question on the BC-3 crane. It contends that he should not be deprived of overtime on his regular assigned position merely because he had been ordered to handle other work because of his greater expertise with such work. Petitioner's reasoning possesses considerable appeal
 'and we would sustain this claim if the parties had not entered into the following agreement on November 8, 1974.

 " ..regular employe as referred to in Rule 18 (b) shall mean the employe who has been working the position to which overtime work accrues and either is the regularly assigned incumbent of the position or the employe who has been assigned to fill a temporary vacancy on the position." Unlike claimant, Mr. Dubensky had been working the position in question-for ten days immediately prior to the call for the overtime in question; he was filling a temporary vacancy occasioned by claimant's assignment- to other equipment. Accordingly,
 PLB-2778 Awd. No. 7 Case No. 18 Carrier could call either claimant or Mr. Dubensky for the overtime. We are not in a position to consider the equities of the situation and must, only because of the language of the November 8, 1974 agreement, deny the -claim.

 AWARD: Claim denied.
              Adopted at Baltimore, Maryland, ~'_L~Z. 198"


                  Hairman


bier member Employe Member