Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8232
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8076
 2-SCL-14A-180



Parties to Dispute:

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.

Claimant contends that when Carrier assigned shop draftsman, Clarence Spanier, who is not a foreman or supervisor to temporarily fill the foreman's position at the second shift wheel shop, it "iolated Agreement Rule 2g, which is referenced hereinafter. Rule 29 - Foremanship, Filling Temporarily: "Should an employee be assigned temporarily to fill the ;place of a foreman, he will be paid his c;,m rate - straight time rate for straight time hours and overtime rate for overtime hours - if greater than the foreman's rate; if it is not, he wi11 get the foreman's rate. Said positions shall be filled only by mechanics of the respective craft in their departments."

 Carrier, contrawise, contends that Agreement Rule 16 does not require that mechanics -rill be promoted to foreman positions, but merely obliges the empl over to consider them. It argues that the position-s cccunied by the shop draftsman and the fore:an he termorarily replaced were not covered by the collective Agreement and thus it was not inciimibent upon Carrier to restrict its consideration to only contract employees. Rule 16 reads: "3·.Lechanics in service will be considered for promotion to positions of foremen when vacancies occur in positions of gang foremen."
 Form l Award No. 8232
 Page 2 Docket No. 8076
 2-SCZ-MA-'80

 In our review of the case, we find that Rule 29 is relevant to this dispute, since it specifically addresses the temporary filling of foreman positions and explicitly requires Carrier to fill these positions with only mechanics of the respective craft in their departments. Admittedly, Carrier can select whomever it decides is most qualified fox a permanent position, but it cannot disregard the last sentence of Rule 29, ?then it fills temporary foreman positions. The Agreement is categorical on this paint. Carrier's correlative assertion that it eras a long standing practice on the property to fill such vacancies in this manner is without legal effect at the Board level since it was first raised in its October 13, 1978 submission in direct contravention oz" Circular 1. Rule 29 is a mandatory prov.sion, incorporated in the Agreement by mutual consent and must be strictly observed by the parties.

 In Second Division Award 1628, which is on point with the interpretive emphasis of this case, we methodically analyzed an identical provision and held in pertinent part that, "The second sentence contains the positive shall and clearly means that said positions shams.. be filled only by mechanics of the respective craft in their department. It is separate and distinct from the first sentence of the rule and unequivocally says that such positions shall be filled only by mechanics of the respective crafts in their departments." We believe this principle is applicable to the fact specifics herein. The foreman's position was temporar7 and not permanent and Carrier was clearly obligated to fill it with a covered employee. It was not technically mandated to fill the position infhe first instance, but once it made this decision, it had to select a machinist. The shop draftsman was not covered by the Agreement and his assignment was improper. We will sustain the claim.

    Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

    -Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January 1980.