PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees


                          and


          CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

      1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned

      junior Foreman/Inspector J. S. Reams to work overtime with

      the rail test car on the LCL Seniority District on March 13,

      1997 instead of assigning senior Foremann/Inspector C. L.

      Ball [System File 8(43)(97)/12(97-1466) LNR].


      2. As a consequence of the violation referred to above,

      Foreman/Inspector C. L. Ball shall be allowed three (3)

      hours of pay at the foreman/inspector's time and one-half

      rate.


FINDINGS:

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:

 1. That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and

      2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 Rule 30 (Overtime) provides,. in relevant part, that:

          (a) Actual work continuous with a regularly

          assigned 8-hour work period shall be paid for

          on the minute basis at time and one-half

          rate, with double time payment acruing after

          16 continuous hours of work. All work within

          a regular 8-hour work period will be paid for

          at straight-time rate,except that when

          doulbe-time payment begins, the employe will


                            1

                                            SSA IIIO Rcid loa


          continue on double-time payment until released.


          (f) The senior available men shall be given preference in the assignment of overtime work on their home sections.


The Claimant, who served on Section Gang 51,93 on March 13, 1997, had greater seniority than the junior employee, who actually performed the disputed work on March 13, 1997. The record indicates that the Claimant had requested to perform the disputed work. The Claimant had possessed the necessary qualifications to perform the disputed overtime work as evidenced by the Carrier's subsequent assignment of the Claimant to work with the rail test car.

 In the absence of any credible explanation for the failure to assign the disputed work to the Claimant, the Carrier had an obligation pursuant to Rule 30 (f) to offer the disputed overtime to the Claimant under these special circumstances. As a result, the remedy sought by the Claimant shall be implemented.

 AWARD:

 The Claim is sustained in accordance with the opinion of the Board. The Carrier shall make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the date of this Award.

                    Robert L. Do glas

                Chairman and Neutral Member


nal Bart Mark D. Selber~
 Employe Member Carrier Member

 Dated: S-

 2