PUBLI9,; LAW, BOARD NO. 4138



Case No.: 11

 PARTIES TO DISP=F; p;

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM
First: that the agreement was violated when Carrier assigned ,junior employe to work as track repairman on Northern Region Rail Gang.

 Second: that claimant Leach be paid difference between Northern
 Region Rail Cangrepairman rate (11.92) and district gang repair
 man rate (11.14) from March 4, 1985 through April 5, 1985. Also
 claimant be reimbursed his expenses.

 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

 And

 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

 FINDINGS
By letter dated February 27, 1985, Claimant was recalled from furlough "to work until you have been -assigned a permanent position." When Claimant reported, he,was.told to report to'.the Northern Regional Rail-Laying Gang ("NRRG") until such time as he was assigned a permanent position. Upon doing so, Claimant was' assigned not to the NRRG, but to District Gang 6N14. The Carrier adviscdClaimant that. his seniority did not allow him to fill a position on·the NRRG, but did permit him to work on 6N14. The rate of pay

 for the'.D.isjtrict,G,ang"was $11,14,;, as opposed to,$11.,f7,£or the NRRG...

v,;; ~ ' f 3 ~-Il


1 ~ 4" J ~ ~a 4.

 The NRRG was established pursuant to the parties' Agreement by Appendix

 No. 26. It is a roving gang.which'is permitted to work in several seniority,.

districts..:Appendix,No: 26 provides, in relevant par~:

 14. If there are -furloughed track subdepartment employees on the
 seniprity district in which the Rail, Gang is, going,to work, they
 will be given an'opportunity to return to work .for"the. amount of
 time that the Rail Gang is on their seniority district,laying'
 rail.

 Rule 21 (f) provides:

 Men working temporarily or extra are subject to displacement by. senior men in the same manneY'as though the positions were

 permanent. ~~, I

The three emplbyes on the NRRG who the Organization asserts were

 subject to displacement compared to Claimant as follows:

 Employee

 R. F. Leach
 J. D. Cates
 B. G. Hatmaker
 K. R. Paul

 Seniority Date

 8-22-78 10-25-78 8-25-78 8-22-78

 Rank 4

 Rank 3

 2-19-82 (4) 2-19-82 (3)
 9-19-80 (2) 4-26-83 (4)
 2-19-82 (3) 2-19-82 (2)
 10-18-79 (1) 10-18-79 (1)

 The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether the Carrier violated the Agreement by its failure to assign Claimant to the NRRG'; and if so, what should the remedy be.',
 The position of the Organization is that,the,Caxrier violated 'the Agreement because the three employes cited were junior to Claimant, and he should have been permitted to displace them on the NRRG. The Organization contends that Claimant was recalled to a position on the NRRG and that he was entitled to such a position until it was abolished or he was displaced.

 It further maintains' that the ;position the Carrier initially.stated that

 Cates held c~oe's,'not1;eXist.

 The position o£ the Carrier is that it committed no violation 6f the Agreement: The Carrier contends~that Appendix No. 26-'does not require that, a furloughed employe be put to work on the NRRG, but merely that he be returned to work for :the amount.of time that the NRRGis in the seniority
 district.' The Carrierpoints out'that this is exactly,ywhat it did relative. to Claimant. Moreover, the Carrier rejects the Organization's position that Claimant was senior to. three employes on the NRRG. 'It maintdins that Cates.' and Hatmaker held positions for which Claimant was not qualified and that Paul was senior to Claimant in a position for which they both were quali-

 fied. Finally, the Carrier contends that Claimant is riot entitled to,,
 compensation as a member of the NRRG, because he did not work as suchr

 After review o£ the entire record, the Board finds that the Carrier did

 not violate the Agreement.

 · The Organization has not sustained its burden of proving a violation of
 the Agreement. Claimant could not have displaced any of the three cited,
 employes even if the Agreement required that he be recalled to the NRRG as,
 opposed to another position in the seniority district. The Carrier correctly maintains that Cates and Hatmaker held positions,for which Claimant did not qualify and that Paul was more senior to Claimant. Further, there is no clear requirement that Claimant, work on'the NRRG. He worked in a position for which he was 'qualified in,the district. while the NRRG was performing- its.',

 duties.

 AWARD
~ _vlvww.N4~
 eutral Member

 Carrier Member

 G

 Organization -Keinber