Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and

 CSX Transportation, Inc.

 OF

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:





















Award No. 34 Case No. 34

 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
The record indicates that the parties entered a Letter Agreement on September 28, 1993 that updated an arbitrated agreement between the parties concerning the establishment of System Production Gangs to perform production work--including track surfacing work--across former property lines or seniority districts.

 The Agreement contains detailed provisions concerning the establishment of rosters, bulletining and filling positions, filling vacancies, filling vacancies pending bulletining and assignment, the form of bulletin, the work week, overtime, lodging, meal allowance, work site reporting, travel allowance and travel advance, national agreements, rates of pay, special rule concerning holidays, claims and grievances, emergency conditions, vacation credits, seniority, work force stabilization, an oversight committee, a non-discrimination clause, labor protection, and the duration of the Agreement.

 The preamble of the Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that:

A careful review of the Agreement reveals that an annual process occurs to award the positions on the System Production Gangs. As part of the bulletining and awarding of such positions, the Carrier identifies the seniority districts over which the System Production Gangs are programmed to work.

 Section 5 of the Agreement, which the parties amended on September 28, 1993, specifies:

The referenced provision in the preamble of the Agreement explicitly reserves to the Carrier the right to have non-System Production Gangs perform the type of work covered by the
Agreement. This is consistent with the fact that the local
 forces involved have the right to perform any scope-covered work
 on their seniority district. Under the circumstances involved in

 this claim, when local forces were available to perf,

 at straight time on their regular work day, there was no requirement that the Carrier use 5PG farces at overtime on their first rest day.

 ,e work

 AWARD:
The Claim is denied.

 Udnald v. %rtholoma Employee M ber

 Chairman and eu

 3

 Member

 Patricia A. Madden Carrier Member
 SBA I 110-3
 ar-therhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

 and

 CSX Transportation, Inc.

 Cla i-m of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that




Award No. 35 Case No. 35

 fINDINCTS s
"This Board, upon tide whole record arid all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:

 i.. ""hint t-,e Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the: Ra Llway Labor Act, as amended,; and

OPINION OF THE
The record indicates that the Saar ties entered into a Letter
 Agreement on September 28, 1993 that updated an arbitrated agreement between the parties concerning the establishment of System Production Gangs to perform production work without regard to --former property lines or seniority districts.

 The Acrcement contains detailed provisions concerning the establi:~.hment of rosters, bulletining and filling positions, filling va:ancies, filling vacancies pending bulletining and assignment, the form of bulletin, the work week, overtime, lodging, meal allowance. work site reporting, travel allowance and travel advance, national agreements, rates of pay, special
 rule concerning holidays, claims and grievances, emergency conditions, vacation credits, seniority, work force stabilization, an oversight committee, a non-discrimination clause, labor protection, and the duration of the Agreement.
Section 18 the Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that:

 playees Right to Exe:-cise 5enioritv
 ,mended 9/28/93

 A.

 a.

 Employees

 igaaed to SPG positions will

 have the right to bid and displace to rather SPG positions, within their assigned SPG, other SPGrs, or positions bulletined on their home road consistent with their existing rights under their home road agreement. 8pG employees awarded a position an another SPG or a position on the employees home road will be released to the new positions within fifteen (15) calendar days following the awarding of the position.

 Tf the employee is riot released to his new position within the fifteen (15) day period provided above, he shall receive three hundred dollars ($3o0) per week held in addition to all allowances provided far herein, provided he has advised his foreman of his assignment to such new position.

 Section 1S expressly specifies that the release of employees from their current positions will occur "within fifteen (15) calendar days following the awarding of the position." The triggering event fcr the fifteen day period occurs cart the date of "the awarding of the position" by the Carrier.

 In the present case the Company awarded the relevant positions to tire Clazatarts in an award bulletin on April 'l, 1995. The Carrier therefore had fifteen days to effectuate the releases of the Claimants from SING 6XT1 to SPG 6XS1. The relevant fifteen-day period ended on April 22, 1995. The Carrier, however, failed to comply with the fifteen-day requirement because the releases did riot occur until April 25, 1995. As a result, the carrier violated SeCtion 1.8 of the Agreement.

 `,the record omits any persuasive evidence that the collective bargaining agreement provided the Carrier with the right to differentiate between the award date of the position (April °7, 1995) and the effective date for the time of assignment (April 17, 3.95) . Section 18 Manly refers to the award date. The

 2
 carrier therefore must comply with the section 18 requirement.
 The carrier failed to do so under the precise facts of the
 present case. Any change to the contractual requirement is a matter fox collective bargaining, not arbitration.

 The Third L.=vision determination in Award No. 31506 (May 23, 2.996; (Richter, Refer#e) lacks persuasiveness because the record i n that. case ind-cated that the relevant position did not exist dur ng :u. entire initial fifteen-day period. As a result, the reasoning i:: Award No. 31506 does not control the outcome in the present case.

 wj.th respect to the requested remedy, section 1$ (B) provides for a payment to a Claimant of "three hundred dollars ($3007 per week held" wiiar a violation occurs of section 18 (Aj . In the present case the rr4:cord indicates that the Carrier held the claimants for only threxB extra days because the actual release occurred on April 25, '_995 instead of by April 22, 1995. Section 18(B) provides for a $300 payment per week. The Claimants did not remain in their original. positions for a full week. Section
 8(Bj omits any authorization to provide for a pro rata remedy
 and furcher omits any suggestion that the Carrier must make a
 pay- for failing to release an employee for less than one
 reek. As _i consequence, the Union failed to prove that the
 Claimants `gad a contractual right to receive a $300 payment under
 -the special circumstances of the present case.

 AWARD
The Claim is sustained in accordance with the opinion of the Board- The Carrier shall make the Award effective on car before 30 days following the date of this Award.
                Chairman and Neutral Member


Dona Id D. 7,B arthol o Patricia A. Madden
 naployee i,~o-:zber Carrier Member

 Dated: a - S`-.,