(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Burlington Northern Inc. (Formerly Chicago, Burlington
 ( & Quincy Railroad Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, instead of using Drawbridge Tender W. W. Myers to p it used B&B Mechanic A. De Silvius therefor on March 22, 23, 29, 30, April 12, 13, May 3, 4, 10 and 11, 1971 (System Files 19-3/MW-6(d)-5, 6-1-71 and MW-6(d)5, 7-8-71).

 (2) Drawbridge Tender W. W, Myers be allowed 80 hours' pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The System Committee of the Brotherhood contends that Carrier
 violated their Agreement when, instead of using Drawbridge
 Tender W. W. Myers to perform drawbridge tender's work on his rest days, it used
 B&B Mechanic A. D. Silvius.

 Claimant Myers had previously been relieved on his rest days by B&B Helper Owen who was used as a vacation relief drawbridge tender under provisions of Appendix "F" which is a part of this record. B&B Helper Owen was not available to perform the been assigned to perform vacation relief work elsewhere. Whereupon Carrier assigned this work to B&B Mechanic Silvius.

 Claimant insists he was entitled to be called to perform this work and draw time and a half pay. Carrier maintains it had authority to designate B&B Mechanic Silvius a which is before us.

 Let us look at the provisions of the Agreements controlling the dispute. First, let it be noted that there is no dispute over the fact that the Brotherhood's Agreement with is controlling on dates prior to May 1, 1971, and the subsequent Agreement with the Burlington Northern Inc. is controlling on dates subsequent to May 1, 1971.

 Claimant sets forth in Employees' Statement of Facts Rule 2(b), Sections (a), (b) and (c) of Rul






Cited in support of this argument are Awards 4490 (Wenke), 4543 (Wenke), 5413 (Parker) and many others. The Board is inclined to agree with this contention.

 The question has been raised as to whether or not the days involved were a part of any assignment. We believe that since B&B Helper Owen was not available to perform the work of his relief position on the dates involved here because of his assignment to fill another position, these days became "unassigned" days, and that Cl work under Rule 39(g) of the Agreement with former CB&Q Railroad Company, and under Rule 24(1) of the Agreement with Burlington Northern Inc. (See Awards 16571 by Heskett, and 15064 by Ives).

 Carrier contends that the the tag-end days in question here were properly filled because of a "long established practice", and cites several awards 17250 by Criswell, 15828 .by Ives, and others.) We agree that in certain instances the genera
B&B Mechanic Silvius was~not.in drawbridge tenders class, nor was he an unassigned employe, nor was he an "extra". In the absence of the regular relief employee (B&B Helper Owen) and in the absence of an extra or unassigned employee with seniority in the drawbridge tender's class, we feel Carrier was obligated to designate Claimant Myers, the regular assigned occupant of this position, for the work on his rest days in question here. (Awards 5475 by Carter and 18319 by Dorsey).







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



        Claim allowed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:~ .a I~_
        xexec~ ntive Seed


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August 1973,