* CSX Transportation Inc.
 * (former Louisville & Nashville)
 Parties
 to the * and 'Case No. 2
 Dispute
 * Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 * *


























L®'d -Q I Bta:b2 I0-0L-GH
                                                    -a


                        2


    ,,Claimants should be allowed their actual expenses, as prescribed by Award 298 and the current Agreement. These expenses should be paid from August 1, 1988, until September 30. 1988, and continuous until violation is stopped.


    On August 1, 1988, Tie Gang 6C26 began work, headquartered stationary at Beattyville, KY. This Gang was later moved to Jackson, KY, headquartered stationary, where it-was subsequently abolished September 30, 1988.


    Claimants were all assigned to this Gang at one time during its existence, and are therefore entitled to expenses, because this Gang did not remain stationary at Beattyville, KY for one (1) year .


    . ...Rule 47, Appendix 35 and Award 298 were violated..."


                OPINION OF THE BOARD


This case involves twenty-two employes who, over a period of approximately one year, worked in one or more Tie Gangs established at four locations on the Eastern Kentucky seniority district. Carrier established and abolished four separate Tie Gangs between August 1, 1988, and July 28, 1989- Each Gang was advertised as a Fixed Headquarters Gang where people went on and off duty each day at this Headquarters point. Petitioner contends that since the Gangs were established, abolished, and then reappeared at other locations, they should have been classified as Floating Gangs and all actualexpenses of named employes should have been paid.

 L0'd =0I sfii:bi i0-0t-L0

                                                y8 ic~ -a


                        3


The fact that the Gang did not remain stationary at Beattyville,KY for one year justifies the Unions, position,
 Carrier contends that the Gangs were all Fixed Headquarter Gangs. The employes who bid the positions knew the situation before they bidand no Contract rights of the employes were violated. Carrier also contends that the claim was untimely filed and should be dismissed on that basis alone.
 The issue in this case is whether the Gangs cited in their claim (Extra Gang 6C26, Extra Gang 5C78, Extra Gang - 5C81, and Extra Gang 6122) were the same Gang with the fixed
 report locations changed three times during the year or -
 whether they were four separate Gangs that were properly -
 established, abolished, and re-established at other
 locations.
 This Board has reviewed the material presented and the pertinent Contract language. We find the claim timely filed but lacking in merit. The Board cannot find any language in the Agreement that restricts Carrier from establishing Fixed Location Gangs and then, when the work at a location is completed, abolish the Gang. Nor do, we find any language in the Agreement that requires Carrier to initially establish a Floating Gang assigned to camp cars rather than a Fixed Headquarter Gang if, in fact, Carrier chooses to operate the Gang from a single location. The

 cold =OI Bb:T,t L0-0L-G0
                                              U


                        4


employee in this instance all bid the job concerned fully
 aware of the conditions governing each Gang. -
 Based on the record and Petitioner's failure to identify the basis for its claim specifically and the amount claimed, the Board i$ compelled to deny this claim.

                        AWARD


                The claim is denied.


                I

              R.E.'))n~nis, Neutral Member


B.C. Sweatt, Carrier Menber N.J. Marquar, Employe Member

 Date of Adoption

 b0'd aU1 05·172 10-01-L0