Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11258
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10799
 2-MCPT-CM-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Maine Central Railroad Company
 (Portland Terminal Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Maine Central Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) violated the provisions of the current Agreement; specifically Rules 26 A, Paragraph (a), Rule 28, Paragraph (c), and letter of Agreement dated August 6, 1980, on July 26, 1983, when Carrier improperly assigned a carman from another seniority point to perform carmen's work at Riley's (sic), Maine.

 2. That accordingly, The Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman R. M. Hodgkins (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) eight (8) hours at the Carmen's pro rata rate and five (5) hours and thirty (.30) minutes at the carmen's time and one-half rate of pay on account of violation.

 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 employes 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.

The Claimant, R. M. Hodgkins, was a furloughed Carman holding seniority at Rumford Yard. On July 26, 1983, rerailing work was performed at Rileys, Maine, by the regular Rumford Carman assisted by a Carman from Lewiston, Maine, which is a different seniority point. The work performed at Rileys is within the furloughed Claimant's seniority point at Rumford.

 The organization contends this action by the Carrier violated Rules 26A(a) and 28(c) of the controlling Agreement. Rule 26A(a) provides:



Form 1
 Page 2

 Note No. 1 - In so far as Carmen's Craft concerned -



Rule 28(c) reads in pertinent part:

 "At points where there is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic of each craft the mechanic or mechanics employed at such points will, so far as they are capable of doing so, perform the work of any craft that it may be necessary to have performed."

 Award No. 11258
 Docket No. 10799
 2-MCPT-CM-187

 The organization contends the Claimant was available and qualified to perform the work in question. In essence, the Organization argues the above Agreement Rules contractually reserve the work performed to employes holding seniority at that point. The Claimant, therefore, should have been assigned to work as a furloughed employe holding seniority at Rumford.

 In on-the-property handling, this Board notes that in denying the Claim, the Carrier asserted that past practice has been that a furloughed employe is not called for less than a five (5) day vacancy. This assertion was not rebutted by the Organization. We also find Rule 25(a) of the Agreement provides in part that:

 "The Carrier shall have the right to use furloughed employes to perform relief work on regular positions during absence of regular occupants ...."

 The final sentence of Rule 25(a) states:

 "It is also understood that the Carrier retains

 the right to use the regular employe under pertinent rules of the Agreement rather than call a furloughed employe."

 Given the above rules and the fact the work performed was incidental to the regular Carmen's duties, the Board finds there is no contractual basis requiring furloughed employes to perform temporary extra work. Also see Awards 10794 through 10800 which deal with the same issue and involve the same parties.

 Iwo
 Form 1 Award No. 11258
 Page 3 Docket No. 10799
 2-MC-CM-'87





Attest. i
 Nancy .ever - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May 1987.