(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the. System Committee of the Bro-

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to permit Trackman Driver Ben Rogers to displace a junior trackman driver.

 (2) The Carrier further violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to allow Trackman Driver Ben Rogers holiday pay for Friday, March 31, 1972 (System File K 247-4969).

 (3) Trackman Driver Ben Rogers be allowed eight (8) hours' holiday pay for Friday, March 31, 1972, eight (8) hours' pay at the trackman driver's straight time rate for April 3, 1972 and the difference between what he would have been paid at the trackman driver's rate and what be has been paid at the trackman's rata beginning an April 4, 1972, because of the violation refers" to within Part (1) of this claim..
OPIIIION OF BOW: Claimant had been employed at Maringouin prior to
 bidding a position as traeimma at Ville Platte.
 On March 30, 1972, be was notified that he vas displaced at Ville
 Platte by a senior eaplayea. On his nest reguiarl7 scheduled sedc
 day (April 3, 1972), he reported to Nariagonin and attempted to
 displace Tracimtan-Driver, Eagiin. Claiimt was advised that he aas
 disqisalifi" as Trams-Driver.

 C>>i ' a seniority raafdsig is number 121, whexa" Eaglin' s ranking is auoiber 122.

 7bare is conflict in the record concerning Claimant's job performance at Maringoaia prior to bidding to Ville Platte. Clal~t insists that he had been employed for two (2) years as a TrackmemDriver. Carrier denies that he had concede. that he did perform same relief driving duties darfag that period of time.


The pertinent Memorandum of Agreement provides:

 "In negotiation of the basic agreement rules this date, 'Trackmen-Drivers' have been listed in the Scope Rule.

 When a motor vehicle for use on the highways is assigned to a track or section gang, one position of trackman shall be established as 'Trackman-Driver' and such position shall carry an hourly rate of six cents above the trackman rate on the gang.

 The establishment of a position of 'Trackman-Driver' on a gang does not preclude other members of the gang from driving the motor vehicle assigned to the gang, and Rule 28 of the basic agreement shall not apply.

 A trackman to be qualified for assignment to the posi- tion of 'Trackman-Driver' must at his own expense, secure and maintain a commercial vehicle operator's license for the state where the position is headguar- tered. Boom presentation of the required license to the District Engineer. the lsttess 'TD' with abbrevia- tion of the state issuinx the license pill be shown opposite the tracbmnnn's name on the seniority roster of trae3oDm.

 Trackman may not exercise seniority under Rules 3 oar 11 to positions of '7r·ckm.n-Driver'unless they are auati- fied-see this agreement, and when asking application for bulletined positims or to essnrtiae displacement rlgbg*
they most show an such ~1; the cosies of tbsir
 license and the aspiration date of the same." (2mdar
 scoriag supplied)

 CL&i mmt asserts that he has the necessary operator's license; has newer been di...m&t~ ,rad- the term of the Ags&enent; and is senior to Esglin. Accordingly, he contends that he should have been permitted to displace the junior Traclmtsa-Driver.

 In its Submission to this Board, Carrier asserts that possession of an operator's license is not the sole criterion for a Trael®ea-Driver position. It suggests that in sons states m applicant need not demonstrate driving ability. Carrier also refers to a refusal to allow "reckless"


However, on the property the Carrier's refusal to allow the displacement was rather vague and inconclusive. Although it appears that Claimant was "disqualified" on April 3, 1972, the stated reasons appeared to have been an unidentified overexpanditure of time and unreliability when Claimant perfor
We do not concur with Carrier's position that possession of an appropriate operator's license is not the sole criterion. Carrier entered into an Agreement which provides for a 6C per hour differential for Trackmen-Drivers. That Agreement limits qualification to securing and, maintaining a license in the appropriate state. We may not write exceptions to a rule when the parties themselves saw fit not to do so. See Award 11668.

 We do not, in this Award, preclude Carrier from making an argument, in an appropriate case, that an employee's performance of driving duties has a bearing upon his retention of the right to continue in that position. But such this case. Carrier stated a "disqualification" in April, 1972, based on alleged events at a previous tine. As pointed out by the Osgasi_ zation an the property:

        "Your statement that 'rlaf,awt had not dlnonatrstld reliability when me= Lo perfuca dies away from the gang location,' is a judgment passed by carrier upon the claim-l! vtt benefit of a haerins or investigation which is a violation of Rule 12 of the current agreement."


The board fiends ftrat Clain..a shoahd here been allowed to displace m April 3, 1972.

 Regarding the claim for holiday pay, we note that Mor 31, 1972 (Good Friday) vas a recognized holiday ulader the Agreement.

 The Agreemt presides for holiday pay if the employee is compenaated for the workdays ilesediately preceding and following such holiday, or, if the employee is available fox service. The Organization contends that Claimant is entitled to holiday pay under either concept.

 Because we have feed that flaininat should have bees all,oeed to displace on his newt regulat-vorkday (April 3, 1972). we find that he was entitled to holiday pay for Mesh 31, 1972.
              Award Number 20345 Page 4

              Docket Number MW-20372


        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 the Railway Labor Act, as approved ,Tune 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein;
        That the Agreement was violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD AD,Tt1STtrFN7 RnARn

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 41 ~e· ~-do.zr
 Executive Secretary
        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1974.


J