PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                    'Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and

                    Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
    Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


        (1) The Agreement was violated when Track Supervisor G. L. Hart was not called to perform track inspecting duties on his assigned territory on January 19 and 20, 1984. (Organization File 4T-4485; Carrier File 81-84-127)


        (2) Claimant G. L. Hart shall now be compensated for five and one half (5 1/2) hours at the applicable overtime rate.


OPINION OF THE BOARD
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 The basic facts are undisputed. The Claimant, G. L. Hart, is assigned the Track Supervisor's position at Stanwood, Iowa, and is responsible for inspecting track between Mile Post 6.9 and
          Mile Post 51.6 on the East Iowa Subdivision. He is regularly


r:
          assigned to work Saturday through Wednesday, with Thursdays and Fridays designated as rest days.

          On January 19 and 20, 1984 (Thursday and Friday), the section crew at Lowden, Iowa, which is encompassed by the Claimant's territory, was called after their regular hours of assign-

          ment to perform track inspection on their territory. The claim "

          is for the time spent by the section crew in inspecting track.

          This involved three hours overtime on January 19 covering service

          between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, and 2.7 hours overtime on

          January 20, 1984, alleging that inspection was conducted between

          9:00 p.m. and 11:40 p.m.

              The Union relies on Rule 23 (1) which reads:


              "(1) Work on unassigned days - Where work is required to be

              perTorme3-on a y rich is not a part of any assign

              ment, 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."

          It is the opinion of the Board that this Rule cannot support the claim. This is not a situation where the work, which can easily be said to accrue to an individual or class of employes, is being performed_on a day which is not part of any-assignment. In this case, the work of track inspection on the Lowden section is not exclusively reserved by Rule or practice to the Claimant. For instance, there is no dispute that a section crew can inspect

          track on its assigned territory as long as that inspection is .

          performed during their regularly assigned work hours -- for exam- -

          ple, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Nor, is there any dispute that a .


                              -2-

F.
      section crew can be called out outside their hours without a Track Supervisor to perform sections duties.

        This case really involves a question of the equitable distribution of overtime opportunities for work which is shared by position/classifications. There simply is no rule which impli-

        citly or explicitly grants the Claimant more or-exclusive enti- -

        tlement to the work at question than the section crew.


        AWARD


          The Claim is denied.


                      iGl Vernon, Lhairman


      A

        a4, "VI

        Harper; Emp oT~Ffember ~r~r . Imo , arrier em er


      Dated: