"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:

1. That the Carrier violated the intent of Rule 24Vx whenever an

employee possessing seniority only at Eastern Region Points 29 & 30

performed duties at Eastern Region Point 32 in lieu of Claimant.

2. That the Carrier compensate Claimant the amount of one hundred

twelve (112) hours at the Carman rate of pay in effect during the

period claimed, and the amount of thirty four (34) hours at the

Carman time and one-half rate of pay in effect during the period

claimed."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant was a furloughed Carman with seniority rights at Benwood, West Virginia. Rule 24%= provides a means by which furloughed Carmen can request to work vacancies by advising the appropriate Supervisor in writing of their intent. Claimant filed such an intent in October to be considered for a temporary vacancy at Benwood. It was common knowledge that the regularly assigned Carman at Benwood would be on vacation for four weeks commencing December 4, 1995.

Claimant did not commence working the Benwood vacancy until December 18, 1995 because inasmuch as he had been off in excess of 90 days prior to the starting date of the vacancy, he was required by the Carrier to undergo a return-to-work physical and to undergo some training to bring him up to speed as to the latest policies, etc.

Claimant was notified to take the physical on December 6, was medically qualified on December 13, and was assigned the Benwood vacancy on December 18. The claim before the Board requests pay for all time lost because Claimant was not assigned the vacancy the day it commenced on December 4, 1995.

The Board, after reviewing the on-property handling and the Carrier's Submission finds that it contains new arguments which were not raised on the property. Because Circular No. I of the Board precludes us from considering new material, our Findings are based solely upon that which was contained in the on-property handling.

Additionally, whatever purpose Carrier intended to convey to the Board by presenting near blank, illegible documents identified as its Exhibits B-1, B-2, C-3, C-a and C-5 is lost. If the Board cannot read them. what good are they''

Regarding the question before the Board. it is evident that the Claimant made a proper request for the temporary vacancy at Benwood in October 1995. The Carrier advanced only two arguments as to why it did not utilize Claimant until December 18, 1995.

First. it is Carrier policy to medically recertify any employee who is off in excess of 90 days. and to advise the recalled employee of any new policies which may have been implemented while off. Second, it was Carrier's intent "to determine if the workload warrants the extra cost incurred to fill Ithel vacancy."

The Board renders no opinion as to the Carrier's policy of requiring recertification of employees off in excess of 90 days, but sees no reason in this record why the Carrier waited until December 6 to contact the Claimant to take his physical. Such could have been done prior to the start of the vacancy.

The Carrier's workload argument is not valid. In our opinion, such determination could and should have been made prior to the start of the vacancy.

Under the circumstances, the claim will be sustained for the period of December 11 through December 16, 1995. Claimant was on vacation commencing December 4 for five days. Thus he was not eligible for any time lost before December 11, 1995.

It is further significant to note that although the Organization sought lost holiday pay in addition to the time lost, while handling the dispute on the property, it did not include a request for holiday pay in its Statement of Claim progressed to the Board. Accordingly, holiday pay will not be allowed as the Board has no jurisdiction to go beyond the Statement of Claim presented to it.

AWARD