Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11848
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11608
 90-2-88-2-120
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the controlling Agreement, specifically Rule 28, when on the date of March 6, 1987, the Carrier ordered carman from another seniority point to perform the work previously performed by the Claimant. The Claimant has been monetarily and contractually deprived under the provisions of the controlling Agreement between the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada.

 2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate the Claimant for all monetary losses suffered as a result of such violation, such losses to the extent of eight (8) hours' pay at the Carmen's straight time rate, on account of Carrier's violation of Rule 28 of the controlling Agreement, as amended, on the date of March 6, 1987.

 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.

In the instant record, Claimant was furloughed and held seniority at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. There is no dispute that on March 6, 1987, Carman Roff, whose seniority was at East Salamanca, New York, (another seniority point) was ordered to assist a Punxsutawney Carman at Clarion Junction. Inasmuch as the furloughed Claimant was not recalled to assist at Clarion Junction, the Organization filed a Claim in his behalf.
 Form 1 Award No. 11848
 Page 2 Docket No. 11608
 90-2-88-2-120

 The Organization argues that the Carrier's assignment of the East Salamanca Cayman was a violation of Rule 28 of the Agreement. In challenging -the Carrier's action, it argues that the governing Rule reserves the work at Clarion Junction to the seniority of Punxsutawney Carmen. Accordingly, the Claimant was deprived of work that was reserved under the Agreement.

 The Carrier argues that the amount of work was minimal, that the assignment of the East Salamanca Cayman did not violate the Agreement, and that said work was not assigned by Rule to the Punxsutawney Cayman. As stated in its letter of September 11, 1987:

The Carrier's position in this matter is that it may use employees on duty, rather than recalling furloughed employees. It argues that it may use employees from either or both Punxsutawney and East Salamanca.

 The Board finds from the record that the Carrier has not violated the Agreement for the following reasons. First, ex parte arguments are not properly before us. The signed May 11, 1978 Memorandum, including Section 5 effective May 15, 1978, which consolidates seniority Points 12 (Punxsutawney) and 13 (DuBois), was not referenced or a matter of discussion on the property as a part of Rule 28. Assuming arguendo, the May 11, 1978 Memorandum had been joined on the property and was properly before this Board (which it is not), it does not grant Punxsutawney Carmen rights to work at Clarion Junction. The Agreement with Memorandum consolidates DuBois (13) and Clarion Junction (14) as one seniority point, and Bradford (15) and East Salamanca (16) as another seniority point, leaving Punxsutawney as a third seniority point (12). The Memorandum contains no language which provides seniority rights of Punxsutawney Carmen to work at Clarion Junction, only that DuBois Carmen are placed on the seniority roster for Punxsutawney.

 There is a lack of proof that the governing Rule reserves the work at Clarion Junction to the seniority of Punxsutawney Carmen. There is no probative evidence and contractual language on point with the instant circumstances. We also note that the Organization does not dispute Carrier's argument that it "retains the right to utilize employees already on duty" rather than recalling furloughed employees, or that what was performed was "a small amount of work." For all these reasons the Claim is denied (Second Division Awards 11325, 11324, 11085, 10938, 10800).
 Form 1 Award No. 11848
 Page 3 Docket No. 11608
 90-2-88-2-120

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: __
        Nancy J. a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May 1990.