Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier refused to allow R. A. LeLeux the per diem allowance for the dates of September 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2002 (System File MW-0303 / 1342743 MPR).
2. As a consequence of the violations referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant R. A. LeLeux shall now be paid the per diem allowance for the aforesaid seven (7) days in the amount of three hundred sixty-four dollars ($364.00).
Claimant was assigned to Gang 9178 working an alternative work period. Claimant's position on Gang 9178 was abolished at the end of his tour on September 23, 2002, which was the last working day of that gang's compressed half work schedule.
Claimant then exercised his seniority and displaced to a position on
The clear language of Rule 36(b)(1) requires that this claim be denied. Rule 36(b)(1) states that "[e]mployees who are assigned headquarters of 'on-line' (without outfit cars) will be allowed a daily per diem allowance ..." [emphasis added]. When Claimant's position on Gang 9178 was abolished on September 23, 2002, he was no longer "assigned" to that gang. Similarly, Claimant was not "assigned" to Gang 9179 until October 1, 2002.
PLB 7156, Award 6
R. A. LeLeux
Page 2
By clear language of Rule 36(b)(1) employees must be "assigned" to an on-line gang to receive the per diem benefit. Because Claimant was not assigned to any gang during the period from the time of the abolishment of his position on Gang 9178 on September 23, 2002 until he began his assignment on Gang 9179 on October 1, 2002, Claimant has no contract right to the per diem sought by the Organization for the period September 24 through 30, 2002.
For reasons explained in Award 3 of this Board, citing Third Division Award 35457, because of the clear language which resolves this matter, the Organization's assertion of the existence of a past practice cannot change the result.