The provisions of Rule 24 (b) are designed to give to employes in the B&B Department a right to exercise seniority privileges not more than once each month on positions for which they express preference. To that extent its intent and function is somewhat similar to the more or less standard practice of bulletining other positions. Specifically, upon issuance of the monthly bulletin a senior employe may displace a junior employe if he desires to do so. However, except as outlined above and except in event of force increase, there is no requirement that the carrier use any particular individual for a short period such as the four days involved in this claim. Temporary vacancies may be filled at the discretion of the Management, giving preference to senior available employes over new men (men not in the Company's service). In this respect the Division said, in Award No. 1150:-

"Since the carrier was under no obligation to assign the emergency work here involved on the basis of seniority, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the conflicting contentions as to the availability of the claimants."

1. The claimant held no seniority in the Water Service Department.

2. The claimant dud hold seniority in the B&B Department, but there is no requirement to use B&B men to act as laborers under Water Service Department employes.

3. Even though such requirement did exist, there is no requirement to use the senior laid off B&B laborer on temporary work of the character in question; and

4. The claimant was not the senior B&B laborer laid off and therefore had no right to be recalled under any circumstances until employes his senior had been recalled to service.

OPINION OF BOARD: On the dates in question, two section laborers assisted Water Service Repairman R. Woods, at Daytons Bluff, Minnesota, in opening up a clogged waterline. These sectionmen unloaded and loaded materials, dug, and back-filled a trench. It is the contention that these sectionmen held seniority rights in the Track subldepartment and this work came under Bridge and Building sub-department. To support this contention, the employes rely upon Rule 4 of the agreement which is, in part, as follows:

"Seniority rights of all employes shall be confined to the subdepartment in which employed and to the territory of one Operating Division, except as hereinafter provided in this rule. The, sub-department shall be as follows:

Track

Bridge and Building

Roadway Equipment Machine

Maintenance of Way Welding"

For the purposes of this claim only, we will assume but not decide that laborers in the Track sub-department did not have rights as laborers in the Water Service Department, Yet the Board is of the opinion that this claim should be denied because there is no showing that the claimant had a right to perform this work.

The record shows the claimant had seniority rights as a laborer in the Bridge and Building sub-department, LaCrosse Division, but from the exhibits in the record, it is shown that he did not have any seniority rghts in the Water Service Department. In fact, the lowest rated employe in that Department is a helper.

Employes contend the Water Service Department is a part of the Bridge and Building sub-department. This is not denied, but the record shows there is a separate Seniority Roster for the Water Service Department and the Bridge and Building Department.

The employes contend that these Seniority Rosters are interchangeable. To support that contention, they produce Seniority Rosters of other Divisions. The Roster at Ottumwa Division shows that one employe holds seniority rights in both the Water Service Department and in the Bridge and Building Department that two employes hold seniority rights only in the Water Service Department; and other employes are shown to have seniority rights in the Bridge and Building Department but not in the Water Service Department.

If it is a fact that the seniority rights are inter-changeable between the Bridge and Building Department, anld the Water Service Department, the employes have failed to sustain their burden of proof to prove such fact.

This rule provides that sub-department seniority applies to all classes in that sub=division, and it gives to an employe seniority rights in all lower classifications as of the date he was originally employed in a higher classifition. For instance, if a man was originally employed as a Water Service Repairman, he would also have seniority rights as a helper of the same date.

However, the converse of that proposition would not be true. If he was employed as a helper in the Water Service Department, he would not automatically obtain seniority rights as a Water Service Repairman.

This rule has no application to the facts in this record, and the claim should be denied.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That under facts in this record the claim should be denied in conformity with the Opinion.

AWARD