PUBLIC ,LAW BOARD NO. 4138
Award No.: .7

 Case No.: 7,

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE '

 STATEMENT OF CLAIt

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

,. And .'


CSR TRANSPORTATION, INC.

 First: that the agreement between the two parties was violated
 when the Carrier crossed seniority districts by using the Rus
 sellville Section Gang (whose seniority is confined to the
 Nashville Division) to work on the Louisville seniority district.

 Second: that claimants J. N. Bradshaw, E. E. Coomer, L. E. Vincent, and R. W. Buckman be paid 8 hours straight time at track repairman's rate of pay.

 FINDINGS
Claimants are regularly assigned to the Mainline,Subdistrict in the Evansville District. On November 6,' 1985, members of the Russellville Section Gang, regularly assigned to the Nashville seniority district, worked on the Mainline $ubdiyision of.the Evansville Division. On the day, in
question,-the Carx~.'er,had no forqes·laid off on the Minline Subdivision and~,·, all employes were fully scheduled, including Claimants . There was work which the Carrier deemed was nece§sary to perform on the Mainline Sub-

 division, so it assigned' the Russellville gang tolper£orm the work.
 Rule 4(a) of the Agreement provides:

 SENIORITY DISTRICTS

 The seniority rights of employer are·"Corm" to their respective seniority districts, as follows:

 4(a)" For employer in the Track Subdepartment: .Cincinnati Division; Eastern Kentucky Division; Cumberland Va7aey Division; Knoxville and Atlanta Division; Louisville Division - Louisvill'e· to Mile Post 174 (including Lebanon Branch, Lebanon,Junction, Kentucky to Sinks, Kentucky); Henderson Subdivision; St. Louis Subdivision (including 1/2 of the Evansville By-Pass Line to a .

 marker approximately 5.15 miles north of the connection to·the old St. Louis Subdivision); Birmingham Division north of Mile Post 383.0; Birmingham Division south of Mile Post 383.0 (including former NC&StL Railway south of Tennessee River on Huntsville Branch); Montgomery and New Orleans Subdivision; Pensacola
 Subdivision; Nashville Terminals (including former Tennessee'
 Central Railway Company property from Vine Hill at Nashville to MP
 129 at Crossville, including active branches or other tracks
 diverging therefrom); Nashville Division - Former NC&StL Railway
 west of Nashville, Tennessee and Memphis Subdivision, from
 Memphis, Tennessee to Mile Post 118; Chattanooga and Atlanta
 Division.

 Rule 10(a) of the Agreement provides:

 TRANSFER FROM OHE'SENIORITY DISTRICT TO ANOTHER

 10(a) If it should be essential, in the opinion of the Manage
 ment, to efficient operation to transfer an employe from one
 seniority district to another in the same subdepartment, that may
 be done. Individual employer or gangs will not be transferred out
 of their respective seniority districts to another district-,
 except under,the following conditions:





days, unless extension is. agreed to between' the Cenera:
 Chairman and the Assistant Vice President - Personnel

 and Labor Relations.

 Subdistrict; and, i£ so, what should the remedy be.

 The position of the Organization is that the' Carrier violated the

 Agreement and that the work performed by the Russellville·'gacig should have. been performed by employes regularly assigned to the Mainline Subdivision.

 The Organization contends that the Carrier has incorrectly relied on Rule .~ 10(a) as justification because the Carrier has not'shown that an emergency. existed. By implication, such an emergency would have.justified the

 assignment of the Russellville gang to the Mainline Subdivision. In short,

 the Organization maintains that Rule 10(a) must be read in the conjunctive

 and that both conditions in 10(a)1 and 2 must. be met in order to permit

 employes' working off their district.

 The position of the Carrier is that it did not violate the Agreement because its actions nre permitted by Rule 10(a) and decisions under that rule. The Carrier contends that it has the right to transfer forces as it sees fit and that no damage was done to Claimants since they were working on the day in question.. The Carrier points out that the Organization has brought repeated claims based on !the Carrier's failure to assign gangs from one seniority district to another in situations where no emergency existed

the Agreement in assigning the Russellville gang to work on the Mainline

' L4I3~- - ,;.


and'contendS:by'rimpVqation that:fit is inappropriate k'or"the~Organization ,to',.;. ..,j take the'opposite point of view now.

 After ,review of,rhe'entire record, the Board~tinds that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

 The Organization has failed xo'sustain its burden!'bf proving a,viola= '''' tion. It has cited Rule 4(a) but has demonstrated nothing other than where. Claimants work and where the Russellville gang worked.., More importantly,
                                                      `r'','·


the Organization has incorrectly read the plain meaning and decisions under,'·~: ,1 ~,~I"~,; I,~ Rule 10. That rule on its face reads in the disjunctive. There is no
                                                    :


requirement that an emergency exist And that there be no cut off employes.in. ... , ~1 'Athe same class, in the district to which the transfer is'made. Only,one , _ . ,-~, ·,~,,'

 requirement need exist and that was clearly the case here. Further, the ,.

 language of 10(a)3 --.which refers to sections 10(b) and (c) --makes it

 clear that the subsections of 10(a) are disjunctive (especially in the '~ · .
 absence of the word "and"). Therefore, the Carrier's position that it could. ,
 transfer the Russellville gang pursuant to Rule 10 is correct.

                                                        ~k' .


                                                        i

              ' I

AWARD
,Claims,denied.

 Neutral Member

      C


trier Mqmber

                              ~Orga~ization Member

Date: 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ go