· BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
 Parties OF WAY EMPLOYES
 to the Case No. 5
 Dispute VS. Award No. 5
 · MAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY-PORTLAND
 · TERMINAL COMPANY









          This case involves the claim of a Machine Operator for overtime


      pay on a job performed by a furloughed employe doing spare work. Claimant

                                              3888


                    _ 2 _


had bid off his regular position on the dates of the claim. .The Organization alleges that Claimant was the senior operator and should have received the appointment.
 This Board must agree with the Organization that the individual given the position was not the appropriate one to receive it and that Claimant is owed compensation for the overtime worked in conjunction with that spare work. To rule otherwise would be to undermine the seniority rights of regular employes.

                    AWARD


              Claim sustained. Claimant shall be compensated accordingly.


            -C:H. GoI', a ra airman


B. L. Peters, Carrier Member W. E. LaRue, Employe Member
 Pl'sseK4 ,~
 -r/3o /9-7
 Dat of Adoption

CARRIER DISSENT

AWARD NO. 5

PUBLIC LAW BOARD 3888


The Carrier vigorously dissents to Award No. 5 of Public Law Board 3888. The Carrier objection is three-fold: (1) the award contradicts many years of past practice on the property; (2) the award contradicts Award No. 3 of this PLB 3888; and, (3) the award could create impossible operational problems for the Carrier.

    (1) Past Practice - For many years the Carrier has provided temporary and/or spare work to employees who, at the time of the work opportunity , did not own a regular assignment. The claimant in the instant case owned a regular job and the temporary work was provided to another employee who did not hold a regular job at the time. The Carrier followed a long-standing past practice which has not previously been challenged by the Organization.


    (2) Award No. 3 - In Award No. 3 of this PLB 3888 the same Neutral Chairman found that the work in question in the instant claim was in fact "spare work." The ruling in Award No. 5 concludes by inference that the work was ugt "spare" since the claim of an employee who owned a regular job was sustained. The claimant, with this award, has the best of all worlds. He has the benefits of the regular job, which he bid off by choice, and the additional overtime income earned by another employee. The Carrier loses by following the agreement and past practice by now paying twice for overtime.


(3) Operational Problems - Taking this award to an extreme
 conclusion would create fhe following problems. The
 Carrier has one (1) day of spare work available in
 location A. The senior man is working on a track sec ion
 at location B, seventy-five (75) miles from location
 but location A is closer to his home. If the Carrier
 follows this award, before offering the work at location A
 to a man who is not working but available, the work must
 be offered to the regular man who then accepts the work.
 Now there is one (1) day of spare work available on the
 section at location B. The senior man is working at
 location C and must be offered the spare work; and so on
 and so on. Other similar scenarios could be developed.
 The above may at first appear extreme, but is not and if
 the Carrier abides by the letter of this award it would
 have grave difficulties efficiently operating the track
 department.

          i


Bradley L. eters Carrier Member