(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake ( Region)

(1) the Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to reimburse Ballast Regulator Operator J. F. Mowery for expenses incurred and to pay him a mileage all automobile when required to leave his regular headquarters point and to work elsewhere on October 25, 1971 (System File MW-BVE-71-14).

 (2) Ballast Regulator Operator J. F. Mowery be allowed a total of 813.83 because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a regularly assigned ballast operator,
 was displaced by a senior employee on October 19,
 1971 and on that date exercised his seniority and assumed the position
 of trackman on Section Gang No. 5 headquartered at St. Marys, Ohio.
 At that date he became the senior ballast regulator operator not regu
 larly assigned as such. On October 25, 1971 Claimant was instructed
 to report to Bellevue, Ohio, to operate a ballast regulator at that
 location. He was not furnished with transportation and drove his
 personal automobile from St. Marys to Bellevue, a distance of 132
 miles. On October 26, 1971 Carrier bulletined the position of
 ballast regulator operator at Bellevue, and Claimant filled the
 position temporarily. On November 15, 1971, being the senior appli
 cant, Claimant was assigned to the position. The dispute herein
 arises from the refusal of Carrier to pay the mileage allowance for
 the trip from St. Marys to Bellevue on October 25th plus the ex
 pense of the evening meal that day.

 Petitioner contends that Rules 46 (f) and 48(b) of -he Agreement, revised by Memorandum of Agreement dated July 10, 1968, are applicable. Those rules read:













Carrier contends that Rule 46 (f) is not applicable and states that 46 (e) covers the situation. That rule reads;









Carrier argues that Claimant's assignment to Bellevue was required by seniority rules and hence was no different than had the position been advertised and he had been assigned by bulletin. Further Carrier contends that if Rule have had to been given a fifteen day notice before his headquarters could be changed. Carrier states that the temporary assignment to Bellevue was a seniority move and the issue is similar to that in Case No. 54 of Public Law Board No. 369 wherein the Board held that the assignment was a seniority move. We note however, that in that Award the Board said: "All that is material is that the assignment is to a regular position and that it was made pursuant to prescribed seniority rules." That factual circum similar to the temporary assignment herein.

 Petitioner argues that the issue herein is whether Claimant incurred expense in "exercise of seniority" or in "recognition of seniority". It is contended that Claimant was sent to Bellevue in recognition of seniority rather than of his requesting opportunity to fill an advertised position.

 The issue in this dispute has been considered by this Board on numerous previous occasions. Carriers have often argued that temporary assignments similar to tha of senioritv. In Award 3426 we said:

 .* .. :




                In sustaining a claim with a virtually identical issue to that herein, in Award 6170, after Carrier's argument on the "exercise of seniority", we said:


                        "This Division has often held that when Carrier acts to fulfill the seniority requirements of its employes in filling temporary vacancies, such as here, it is not an exercise of seniority by the employe but the performance


I
                        of Carrier's duty and done at its direction."


                In this dispute Claimant could not have exercised his seniority since the bulletin dated October 26, 1971 did not appear until October 28, 1971 and he was assigned to Bellevue on October 25th. Furthermore, it was Carrier's responsibility to fill temporary vacancies in accordance with se posting; we concur in the earlier thinking expressed in the Awards quoted above. We note that contrary to Carrier's contention, St. Marys continued to be Claimant's headquarters point and there was no need for a fifteen day notice for the temporary assignment. The Claim will be sustained.


                        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


                        That the parties waived oral hearing:


                That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes wit 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.


ay
                Award ;lumber 20184 Page 5

                Docket Number :4W-20126

                A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of March 1974.