(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (1ouisville and Nashville Railroad Company

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

 (1) The demotion of Track Foreman D. F. Martin and his disguAnlification for work in Ranks 1 an abuse of justice and discretion and in violation of the Agreement (System File 1-12/D-105155 E-306-18).

 (2) Mr. D. F. Martin nor be reinstated and paid at the foreman's rate for all straight-time and overtime worked by Timbering Gang No. 150 from 12:00 A on October 31, 1973 until he is reinstated as foreman with his Ranks 1 and 2 seniority.

 OPI11IQf OF BOARD: On October 31, 1973, the Claimant was scheduled to begin
 service at 7:00 A.M. on his regular assignment as the
 Foreman of Timbering Gang No. 150. Because of an alleged auto accident
 which occurred in circumstances that prevented him from phoning his super
 visor, the Claimant was delayed in reaching work and his supervisor had no
 knowledge of when he would arrive. He reported for duty at about 12:00
 noon, at which time he was verbally relieved of his foreman's duties and
 informed that he could exercise his seniority in another capacity. The
 following day he received a letter which reads as follows:



Following investigation, the Claimant's demotion from the foreman's position was confirmed by a letter from the Division Engineer.

 The Employes' appeal raises a procedural issue which is supported by the record and thus the merits of this dispute will not be reached. The procedural issue is based on the Employee' contention that the discipline must be vacated because the Carrier failed to comply with Rule 25(a) which reads as follows:


        "Employes in higher ranks who become disqualified for work in the higher ranks may be demoted to lower ranks. Such action shall not be taken, however, until charges have been Preferred against the employe, and if be so desires, a hearing granted in accordance with Rule 27 b). If the employs feels unjustly treated, he shall have the right to appeal his case in accordance with Rule 27(e)." (Underline added)


The Carrier does not dispute that the Claimant was demoted without charges having been preferred However, the Carrier asserts that the demotion was a disciplinary measure governed by Rule 27 (Discipline and Investigation) and that, since the Claimant's lack of qualifications was not the reason for the demotion, the provisions'of Rule 25(a) are not applicable.

 Rule 25(a) refers to "employee... who become disqualified for work in the higher ranks," and provides that such employes may be demoted to lower ranks. The rule goes on to state that, as a condition precedent to demotion, charges must be preferred and a hearing opportunity afforded. In terms of who is covered by the rule, the definitional term in the rule is "employes... who become disqualified." This term gives no indication that, because of differing reasons for demotions, some demoted employes are covered by the rule while others are not; instead, the term on its face clearly indicates that the rule encompasses any disqualification and demotion without regard to the to the demotion, it mist be concluded that the Carrier's action violated that rule and the Employes' position is supported by the record and the rule. Accordingly, the claim will be sustained to the extent that the Carrier shall pay the Claimant the difference between the rate of his lower rank of service and the rate of the foreman's position for the period beginning on the date of his d
        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
                  Award Number 21071 Page 3

                  Docket Number W-21064


        That the Agreement was violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained as per opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTDMT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~I
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1976.