These men shall be used for relief assistant track foreman and or track foreman's work on their Roadmaster's district, and if their work as relief foreman or assistant foreman during the period of twelve consecutive months following their selection of relief work is satisfactory and they pass satisfactory examinations, they shall be eligible in the order of their written designation as relief foreman for promotion to assistant track foremanship and/or track foremanship on their Superintendent's operating district. Where conditions make necessary men may be promoted in less than twelve months."

which specifically provides that section laborers selected, as stipulated in that rule, to perform service as relief assistant track foremen and/or track foremen shall be used for such relief work on their Roadmaster's District. Mr. Yount's Roadmaster's District is the Oklahoma Subdivision, and not the Osage Subdivision on which Mound Valley is located. Mr. Stokes' Roadmaster's District is the Osage Subdivision on which Mound Valley is located and he was therefore used in accordance with Rules 1 and 5 of Article 4 to relieve Foreman of Section 119 at Mound Valley, Kansas, November 16, 1950. The Agreement was therefore complied with and not violated as alleged by the Claimant and the Petitioner.

As this claim is barred by the provisions of Rule 2, Article 24, and the handling in this instance was strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rules 1 and 5, Article 4, and not in violation of Rule 5, Article 4, as alleged by the Petitioner, the Carrier requests that the claim be denied.

Except as expressly admitted herein, the Carrier denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of the Petitioner's claim, original submission and any and all subsequent pleadings.

All data submitted in support of Carrier's position as herein set forth have been heretofore submitted to the employes or their duly authorized representatives. (Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends Carrier has violated the provisions of Article 4, Rule 5 of the effective Agreement between the parties, by its failure to notify and advise relief section foreman, W. E. Yount, of a vacancy in a position of section foreman. Allegation is made that .a vacancy occurred in the position of section foreman, Section 119; that the claimant herein was the senior relief foreman, but Carrier failed to advise claimant of such vacancy, in violation of Article 4, Rule 5 of the Agreement. The vacancy occurred November 20, 1950, and the claim is for the difference in pay between what claimant received as section laborer and what he would have received had he been assigned the position of relief foreman. The record does disclose the position in question was advertised on January 2, 1951, and that claimant was the successful bidder and was assigned the position on January 19, 1951.

Carrier contends, in addition to its complete denial of the claim, that the claim is barred under the provision of Article 24, Rule 2 of the 1949 Agreement. From a review of the record, we must hold that the events or circumstances on which this claim is based began on November 16, 1950, at the time the position of section foreman was vacant, when the regularly assigned foreman began his vacation and the position was assigned to J. W. Stokes, holding seniority junior to the claimant.

Since claim for a monetary recovery was not filed by this claimant within sixty (60) days, as provided by Article 24, Rule 2 of the Agreement, we must hold the claim was not filed within the limitations of the above rule, since the record clearly shows claim was not filed with the Carrier until January 29, 1951, approximately seventy-three (73) days after the event or circumstances arose, on which the claim was based. See Award No. 4554.

AWARD