Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9238
 SDCOND DIVISION Docket No. 9363
 2-SPT-MA-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members sad in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and
 Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers


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 employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the messing of the Railwapr Labor Act as approved dune 21, 193+.

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

The Organization brings this claim for an unspecified mount of overtime compensation on behalf of six Machinists stationed at the Carrier's Avondale, Louisiana facility. Beginning on June 4, 1980 and on certain dates thereafter until April, 1981, the Carrier assigned Machinist J. J. Mathews to work both his regular day shift position as a Machinist and a third trick temporary foremen position within single twenty-four hour periods.

 The Organization characterizes the assignment of Machinist Mathews to his regular craft shift as well as (later the sane dept) to a supervisory position as a continuing violation of Rules 29 gad 31 of the applicable Agreement. The Organization argues that Rule 29 (implies) prohibits a temporary Foreman frog also performing his regular crept shift. According to the Organization, once the Carrier appointed Machinist Mathews to a Foreman's shift and once he accepted the temporary supervisory assignment he was presumptively barred troy also protecting his regular assignment within one day.

Form 1 Award No. 9238
 Page 2 Docket No. 9363
 2-SPT-MA-182

 On the other hand,% the Carrier contends that neither Rule 29 nor Rule 31 prevented the Carrier from assigning Machinist Mathews to the two separate shifts so long as he did not perform Mechanic's work while temporarily filling the foreman's shift. To support its contention.. the Carrier cites as August 27, 1971 letter agreement it negotiated with another shop craft organization (Brotherhood R ailway Cornea of the United States and Canada) where those parties expressly agreed that "... should a carmsn be used temporarily as a foreman under Rule 31 of the agreement, he will not be permitted to work his regular assignment for that day". The Carrier asserts that a separate latter agreement with the Carson world not have been necessary i! the applicable shopcraft contract already prohibited the dual daily assignments involved in this claim. Since there is no similar agreement between the Organization herein and the Carrier, the Carrier believes it retained the discretion to assign Machinist Mathews to his regular craft position sad a temporary foreman's shift within a single day.

 The Carrier also argues that this claim should be summarily dismissed due to vagueness. While the Organization did not name each Claimant in the initial claim dated July 24, 1980, the claim did refer to "all available Machinists on the Avondale Seniority Roster" which constituted sufficient identification of the Claimants since they could be readily ascertained. Also, the Carrier alleges this claim was not timely filed. This Board finds that the Organization properly progressed this complaint as a continuing claim pursuant to Rule 32(d); though retroactive monetary relief cannot be allowed for more than sixty days prior to the initiation of the continuing portion of the claim.

 The pertinent portions of Rule 29 and 31, on which the Organization planes reliance, state:



Rule 31 did not expressly bar the Carrier from assigning Machinist Mathews to work two separate and distinct shifts in one day; one as a Machinist sad the other as temporary foreman. During the shifts where Machinist Mathews was utilized as a temporary foreman, he did not perform any work reserved to the Machinists craft. Also, he did not perform acting foreman duties and simultaneously protect his regular assignment so Rule 29 has not been violated.
which forbid the Carrier from allowing a mechanic to protect his regular assignment
 on a day when the mechanic also temporarily fills a foreman's position. Thus, we
 conclude the gravamen of this dispute is more appropriately a subject for collective
 bargaining. Absent a clear prohibition in Rules 29 and 31 and absent an ancillary
 agreement similar to the one in effect between the Carmen sad the Carrier, we must 140
 deny this claim.
 Form I Award No. 9238
 page 3 Docket No. 9363
 2-SPT-MA-'82




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 J$~a'emarie Hrasch - administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.