the foreman has the same right to perform work as any of the other employes assigned thereto.

Not only does the foreman have a right to perform work assigned to this craft, his right to assign the employe of his choice to perform a certain task including overtime work cannot be disputed. Furthermore, if he chooses to perform the work himself, he has a right to do so. In the instant case, the foreman merely exercised this right.

The Board's attention is directed to its opinion in Third Division Award No. 6331 wherein it stated that:

"Except insofar as it has restricted itself by the collective agreement or it may be limited by law, the assignment of work necessary to its operation lies within the carrier's discretion."

In summary, the instant claim is invalid because (1) the claimant was not available to perform the work in question, (2) claimant had no inherent contractual right to perform the work, and (3) the foreman, whose seniority date in this class of service antedates that of the claimant in addition to being supervisor of Truck Gang No. 209, is also a member thereof and by virtue of so being can, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, assign such work to any member of the gang including himself.

This claim is based upon a false premise, is not supported by the rules of the agreement and, accordingly, should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: The ,Claimant was regularly assigned as Sectionman on Truck Gang No. 209, Evansville, Indiana, with a workweek of Monday through Friday with rest days of Saturday and Sunday. During April, 1962, Truck Gang No. 209 was engaged in the performance of certain work in connection with the reconstruction of the highway crossing at Kentucky and Franklin Streets in Evansville, Indiana. During the hours of darkness it was necessary to place lighted flares at these highway crossing sites. It was necessary that the flares remain lighted during the weekend of April 7 and 8, 1962. The Section Foreman cared for and lighted the flares on the two rest days.

The Employes contend that on the regularly assigned work days ,the work of cleaning, filling and lighting these flares was assigned to and performed by seetionmen. They state that by allowing Section Foreman to perform this work on the two rest days the Carrier violated Rule 10 (c) of the Agreement. Rule 10 (c) reads:

"(c) Where work is required by the carrier to be performed on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise not have 40 hours of work that week; in all other cases by the regular employe."

On record page 22 Carrier summarizes it's defenses: "(1) the claimant was not available to perform the work in question, (2) claimant had no inherent contractual right to perform the work, and (3) the foreman, whose seniority date in this class of service antedates that of the claimant in addition to being supervisor of Truck Gang No. 209, is also a member thereof and by virtue of so being can, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, assign such work to any member of the gang including himself:'

We must reject Carrier's first defense since this issue was not raised during the handling of this case on the property and cannot now be raised under the rules of this Board.

In the handling on the property and in their submission to this Board Carrier has relied on the Scope Rule of the Agreement. The Scope Rule is general in nature and we agree with the Carrier's position that foreman are covered by this rule.

We have held previously that special or specific rules hold precedent over the general rules of the agreement. Rule 10 (c) is specific and prevails over any general rule in the agreement.

There is no dispute that: (1) during the workweek sectionmen performed the work that was performed by the section foreman on the rest days; (2) that the Claimant was the senior sectionman on Truck Gang No. 209; and (3) the work was not assigned to an eligible "available extra or unassigned employe." Rule 10 (c) required the Carrier to call the regular employe. See Awards 13824 (Dorsey) and 14029 (Hamilton). We will sustain the claim.

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 the Agreement was violated by the Carrier.

AWARD