PARTIES TO DLPUTE:






STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned the Chariton Section Crew on
 January 26, 1987, to change a broken rail on the section territory assigned to the Allerton
 Section Crew. (Organization File 4SW-1191T; Carrier File 81-87-80)

 (2) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned the Chariton Section Crew on
 February 26, 1987, to angle bar a broken rail on the section territory assigned to the Allerton
 Section Crew. (Organization File 4SW-1193T; Carrier File 81-87-82)

 (3) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned the Allerton Section Crew on
 January 24, 1987, to repair an open joint; on January 25, 1987; to change angle bars; and,
 on February 8, 1987, to surface track and install track bolts on the section territory assigned
 to the Trenton Section Crew. (Organization File 4SW-1194T; Carrier File 81-87-83)

 (4) Because of the violation described in Part 1, Allerton Section Crew members J. R.
 Noe, F. W. Stark, and R. E. Sanders, Jr. shall each be allowed 2 hours and 40 minutes pay
 at their respective overtime rates.

 (5) Because of the violation described in Part 2, Allerton Section Crew members P. F.
 Davison, F. W. Stark, and R. E. Sanders, Jr. shall each be allowed 2 hours and 40 minutes
 pay at their respective overtime rates.

 (6) Because of the violation described in Part 3, Trenton Section Crew members P. G.
 Wallace, J. D. McGinnes and F. G. Lawson shall each be allowed 10 hours and 40 minutes
 at their respective overtime rates."
 :~ a q4nO Ito I

        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 claims generally protest the use of an adjacent section crew to perform work on the Claimant's crew on their rest day. The crew that was used was not on their day. The rest days of the crews are staggered. The organization relies on Rule 23(l) which states in relevant part:


    "Work on unassigned days - Where work is required to be performed on a day

    which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an

    available extra unassigned employe who will otherwise not have 40 hours of

    work that week; in all other cases. by the regular emolove."

    We note that the Carrier asserted on the property that the Roadmaster has in the past-

    consistent with what they believed to be his rights--used employes from both section crews

    on either territory when needed. In view of this and in view of the fact that the crew used

    was not on their rest day, it can be said that the work in question was part of their

    assignment. Therefore, Rule 23(1) is not applicable in these circumstances.

~L~ v2~ 6J
                                                        1 bD

                              -3- AWARD NO. 15~


      AWARD:


          The claims are denied.


                        Gil Vernon, Chairman


      D. . artholomay Jo Harvieux

      Employe Member C~ Member


      Dated: ~' o~S ~q