Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11652
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11449
 89-2-87-2-96
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
 {Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the service rights of Carman David L. Laney, Rule 27 1/2 of the Shop Crafts Agreement and Guidelines issued December 11, 1970, were violated on May 2, 1985 account Mr. Laney was denied work opportunity on a continuous basis from said date.

 2. Accordingly, Laney is entitled to be compensated for all lost wages from May 2, 1985 and for each date thereafter until the violation is corrected.

 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.

Claimant was a bona fide carman in furloughed status who attempted to exercise his seniority by displacing a tentative carman at Danville, West Virginia under the Displacement Guidelines of December 11, 1970. His request was refused by the Carrier on the grounds that there were no carmen tentatives employed at Danville.

 Claimant thereafter attempted to file for relief work under Rule 27 1/2 and was initially denied as he could not respond to a call "under Rule 27 1/2 in the one hour time period." He was further denied as there had been no carmen tentatives working a bulletined position which he could displace.
 Form 1 Award No. 11652 .,wrr
 Page 2 Docket No. 11449
 89-2-87-2-96
 The instant claim was filed by the Organization due to alleged Car
 rier violation of the Rule and Guidelines, supra. The Organization points to
 complaints and concerns with the practices at Danville. The Organization
 argues that the Claimant was not permitted to exercise his seniority rights to
 displace tentative carmen who were working at Danville.
 It is the position of the Carrier that there was a practice of one
 hour to respond to a call on the property and that Claimant had initially
 indicated he could not respond. Further, the Carrier maintained throughout
 this dispute that it violated no rule as there never was a carman tentative
 working a bulletined assignment at Danville.
 A careful review of the issues at dispute in the instant case move
 this Board to find for the Carrier. The Organization has provided no evidence
 that the tentative carman working at Danville was holding a position for which
 he could have been "displaced" by Agreement. Guidelines are not provisions
 negotiated between the parties. No probative evidence of past practice
 indicates that Carrier has misapplied its guidelines. Additionally, it is
 unrefuted in the record that the tentative carman working at Danville did not
 hold a bulletined or advertised regular assignment. The Organization points
 only to the facts of record that Carrier investigation determined that there
 was a tentative working at Danville. The record also indicates that the
 tentative was not occupying an advertised position, but doing extra work.
 The Board finds that Rule 27 1/2 was not violated by the Carrier.
 Claimant filed to put his name on the list and his name was added to the 27
 1/2 list. The Board finds the Rule is silent as to time. It also finds that
 the Carrier's statement of a one hour practice on the property is unrefuted.
 Claimant by putting his name on the list requested relief work. The Rule,
 supra, is clear that such work must be on regular positions and as per the
 note, not extra work. The evidence indicates that no such relief work on
 regular positions existed at Danville. Lacking Agreement language restricting
 the Carrier or evidence of a misapplication of the Guidelines as per the
 practice of the parties, the Claim must be denied for lack of proof.
 A W A R D




Attest:

        Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of February 1989.