(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (J. F. Nash and R. C. Haldeman, Trustees of the ( Property of Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, ( Debtor

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned or otherwise permitted Foreman S. Frederick to perform the duties of the truck driver's position at Allentown from January 11 to February 18, 1972 (both dates inclusive) instead of recalling furloughed Truck Driver Ismael Rodriguez to fill said truck driver's position.

 (2) The Carrier further violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to bulletin the vacancy in said truck driver's position which existed from January 11 to February 18, 1972 inclusive.

 (3) Ismael Rodriguez be allowed eight (8) hours of pay for each work day within the period mentioned in Parts (1) and (2) hereof.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim hinges on the meaning of a Memorandum of
 Agreement signed by the parties on October 29, 1947. The applicable language reads:


The factual setting begins with Claimants' displacement from his truck driver position by a senior employee. He exercised his seniority to secure a position as t that position and furloughed. The employee who had displaced him as a truck driver was reassigned and a foreman was assigned the duties of the truck driver position.


The employees believe that Carrier was required to advertise the position. Carrier's position is that section 3 of the Memorandum permits it to use foremen to operate trucks without limitation. The answer to the conflicting views is to be found in the language and the practice.

 It is apparent that the particular position under consideration has not been occupied by a foreman as a matter of practice. Claimant, prior to his displacement, was regularly assigned to it. The applicable language in the Memorandum cannot be read as Carrier reads it. It does not mean that foremen can be used to fill any and all vacancies to operate trucks. The Agreement speaks of "continuing to operate M. of W auto trucks." The intent here is to continue what has gone before, not to have foremen operate any truck, but to have them to continue to operate as they have before. Carrier has shown no practice of having a foreman operate a truck at this location. The Agreement also refers to trucks "used by them in the performance of their work." This reference, too, makes it clear that the parties agreed to have foremen operate trucks as they had in the past, that is to operate in specific locations and assignments. No evidence of such practice has been shown here. Finally, the reference to establishing new positions makes it clear that what the parties intended to accomplish was to permit the continuance of past practice. By reasonable inference the language also means that a practice of not permitting foremen to operate trucks would also continue and that when a vacancy in an assignment which had been occupied by a truck driver existed it would be filled by the application of the terms of paragraph 4 of the Memorandum which reads, in pertinent part:

Carrier did not advertise the vacancy in the position of M. of W. Auto Truck Driver as required by the Agreement.

 I
                    Docket Number b8J-20491


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                            'By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: (~C i`/V0 ~Adf 4 0
 Executive Secretary-

          Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of October 1974.