work involved in the maintenance and repair of bridge and building facilities. Accordingly, from December 10, 1986 through February 12, 1987, Carrier assigned Division Bridge -and Building crews to perform the maintenance and repair work.

The organization maintains that the work in question (on former CB&Q territory) should have been assigned to employees holding seniority as Division B&B employees who were either furloughed or assigned to lower rated positions on account of force reductions. In its view, carrier's action here violates Rule 6(d) of the former CB&Q Agreement effective September 1, 1949. That provision reads, in relevant part:

(d) Employees assigned to System Bridge and Building gangs will have the right to work over the System and will not be subject to displacement by employes holding Division --seniority. A System gang will not be used to supplant a Division gang but may be used to perform work on a seniority district when no Division gang with the required -supervision; experience and personnel is available on the seniority district to perform the work to which such System gang- is to be assigned.

The Organization points out that the language is clear that System B&B gangs and Division B&B gangs-may-perform similar work but that System B&B forces would not supplant Division forces in the performance of such work. In the organization's view, Carrier's action has the effect of totally destroying the seniority rights of the affected Division B&B employees.

Moreover,-the Organization argues that this dispute does not involve the necessity to show exclusive reservation of work. It recognizes that the work in question has been performed by System

'~Y

C4 01 2

B&B forces as well as Division B&B forces. The organization asserts that System B&B forces may perform B&B work on a seniority district under certain circumstances-, but with a restriction that System gang will not be used to supplant a Division gang.

For these reasons, then, the organization asks that the claim be sustained. It seeks 330.2 hours at straight time rates for First Class Mechanics W.C. Smith, R.S. Lorentz, D.T. Stone, R.E. Abbey and M.D. Williamson.- In addition, the organization asks that B&B Foreman K. L. Lytle be allowed the difference between what he would have earned and what he was paid as a First Class Mechanic for the 243.2 straight time hours and three and one-half overtime

Rule G(d) of the former CB&Q the current agreement. In the contained in former Rule G(d) the new agreement which has no

Carrier also insists that for the Organization to prevail here it must show that the work in question was performed exclusively by Division B&B employees. This, it contends, the organization has not done. Accordingly, Carrier asks that the claim be denied.

After reviewing the record evidence, we are convinced that the claim must fail. Although the Organization may be correct in its assertion that Senior Division employees who had been furloughed

qrou -(6I

should be assigned to such work before junior -employees, there exists no rule support for such contention. Although the intent of the parties may had been for such assumption, such language has not been incorporated into the existing agreement. It is therefore left to the parties to negotiate such language into the agreement. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the claim is denied.

That the Agreement was not violated.

Ma~rtir,T Fl Scheinman, Esq., Neutral Member