(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern
 Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines):

 (a) That the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between the Company and the Employes of the Signal Department represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) and particularly Rule 33, which resulted in violation of Rule 70.

 Rule 33 - SENIORITY RIGHTS, provides: "Rights accruing to employes under their seniority entitle them to consideration for positions in accordance with their relative length of service as hereinafter provided."

 Rule 70 - LOSS OF EARNINGS, provides: "An employe covered by this agreement who suffers loss of earnings because of violation or misapplication of any portion of this agreement shall be reimbursed for such loss."

 (b) That Mr. Dale Bohling be reimbursed for loss suffered
 when a junior employe was used to fill a temporary vacancy.
 /Carrier's File: SIG 148-191/

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that an employe junior to Claimant
 was improperly assigned to the position of Signal
 Foreman at Carrier's Sacramento, California, signal shop, while the
 position was temporarily vacant during the period of its advertise
 ment for seniority choice. Neither the Claimant nor the employee
 assigned to the temporary vacancy held seniority in the class of Sig
 nal Foreman; both held seniority in the class of Signalman, with
 Claimant being the senior Signalman.

 In progressing the claim on the property the Employes alleged a violation of Rule 33, which read


        "RULE 33. SENIORITY RIGHTS. Rights accruing to employes under their seniority entitle them to co length of service as hereinafter provided."


The Carrier's response to the claim, as stated in an August 18, 1971 letter of the Assistant Manager of Labor Relations, was that:

        "Claim in this case is stated to be based upon provisions of Rule 33, captioned 'Seniority Rights,' and Rule 70, captioned 'Loss of Earnings.' As discussed in conference, claimant Bohling does not hold seniority rights in the Foreman class. Rule 32 states the conditions with specific exceptions, as stated therein, including use of employes filling temporary vacancies in higher seniority classes. Since claimant Bohling has not established senority rights under Rule 32 to the position in Rule 33 is not applicable. Even if provisions of Rule 33 were applicable, that rule states that employes shall be entitled to consideration for positions 'as support the claim in this case." (emphasis added)


No other rule was cited on the property by the Employes in response to the foregoing underlined passage; however, in their Submission to this Board, the Employ Classes) and Rule 48 (a) (Promotions), along with Rule 33, as supperting the claim.

 The Carrier objects to Board consideration of Rules 34 and 48 (a) on the ground that they were not raised on the property. Rule 33, standing alone, does not support the claim and Carrier's objection to consideration of Rules 34 and 48 (a) is well taken. The Employes were expressly challenged on the property to cite any additional rules that would support the claim. The Employes failed to do so and the injection of additional rules for the first time before this Board comes too late. Award 18246. We shall deny the claim,on the ground that it is not supported by Rule 33.

        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;

          Award Number 20255 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-19946


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        The Agreement was not violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          xecutiv~e Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1974.

 _:k "ii