Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEDIT BOARD Award No. 7507
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7408
 2-MP-CM-'78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:







Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

A temporary vacancy existed on a Car Foreman's position at North Little Rock during the period of September 16 through the 27th, 1975, while the regular incumbent was working a vacation vacancy. To fill this resulting vacancy, Carrier assigned Car?nan Haag, who had a regular assignment on the North Little Rock Repair Track with rest days of Tuesday and Wednesday. The foreman's vacancy he seas filling had rest days of Thursday and Friday, and, on those rest days, Carrier permitted Mr. Haag to return to his Carman's assignment anal work. This action is in dispute; the Employes contending that under the existing rules, Cannan Haag, while filling the Foreman's vacancy, assumed all the hours and conditions of that assignment which would thus preclude Mr. Haag from working his Cayman's assignment on his Foreman rest days. On the other hand, Carrier contends that a special
 Form 1 Award No. 7507
 Page 2 Docket No. 7408
 2-MP-CM-'78

 memorandum of agreement dated April 30, 1954 provides that only in cases where Foremen are absent on vacation are employes in the status of Mr. Haag precluded from working the rest days of their temporarily vacated Carman's assignment.

 We examine this dispute in light of the existing provisions of the agreement between the parties and our previous decisions. Firstly, the Employes cite Rule 30 of the agreement between the parties, which provides:

Carrier's position is, as we noted, based on the provisions of a special memorandum of agreement dated April 30, 1954 which has specific application "When Employes represented by the Organizations parties hereto are selected to relieve Foreman while the latter are ABSENT ON VACATION..."

 In reaching a decision on this case, we firstly comment that we do not think that the narrow application given by Carrier to the April 30, 1954 memorandum of agreement is correct. The vacancy here in dispute resulted because an employe represented by one of the Organizations parties hereto was selected to relieve a Foreman while the latter was absent on vacation.

 Secondly, and more importantly, we considered the meaning and intent of Rule 30, supra, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. In our decision in Second Division Award 4677 (and followed in Award 5808), we held:


We think this principle is directly on point with the facts of this case and the application of Rule 30. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that Carrier erred when it permitted Mr. Haag to work his temporarily vacated Carman's assignment on the rest days of his Car Foreman's assignment.

 Accordingly, we will sustain the claim, but, only at the pro rata rate in light of many of our previous decisions which have held that the proper measure of damages is the pro rata rate when no work is performed.
 Foxm 1
 Page 3

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 7507
 Docket No. 7408
 2-MP-CM-'78

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By t.s,.·~-~.a
 semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant