(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Railway Company

On behalf of the senior assistant signalman, Mr. R. W. Pearson, on Mr. Roberts
 gang, #3, Lines East seniority district, for the difference in his assistant
 signalman rate of pay and that of a signalman, account of not being stepped
 up to signalman to fill the temporary job vacated by Signalman J. _D. Arrow
 ood on gang 3. Claim is to be retroactive for 60 days from this /April 5,
 1975, date of initial claim letter/ date and is to continue until Mr. Arrow
 ood's job is bulletined and filled by senior bidder or until Mr. Arrowood
 returns to the job. /Carrier's file: SG-109/

 OPINION OF BOARD: The parties to this dispute made an agreement which be
 came effective on May 1, 1974. That agreement provided,
 inter alia, for the establishment of "System Signal Gangs" and for minimum
 crew consists on existing "District Signal Gangs."

 Claimant Pearson was employed as an Assistant Signalman on District Signal Gang No. 3 when the temporary vacancy in a Signalman's position in that Gang occurred in February, 1975. Carrier avers that when the Signalmen's temporary vacancy was advertised, no bids were received from qualified employes in Lines East senior
The Employes contend that Carrier was nevertheless required to fill the vacant position in order to maintain the minimum crew consist. The Carrier responds that no rule requires the Carrier to fill temporary vacancies in positions of Signalmen in District Signal Gangs by stepping up assistant signalmen who have not had sufficient training and experience to qualify for promotion.

 The agreement governing promotion of assistant signalmen is set out in Agreement Rule 2(e) (3) of the parties' 1948 Agreement. The parties were cognizant of those provisions when they entered into the "System Gang Agreement", and they did not a Rule 2(e) (3). Consequently, we do not find that the parties intended that an unqualified assistant signalman should be promoted, thereby establishing seniority and other rights in the Signalmen's class, in circumstances such as these. However, they did provide in the later agreement for the maintenance of a minimum crew consist; it is clear that they intended that the positions listed be filled.


We hold, therefore, that the Carrier violated the agreement and that the Claimant should be paid as claimed. We expressly do not find that promotion can be had except as set out in Rule 2(e) (3).

        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 within the meaning of 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.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: 12 ~e ~G_~&~ By Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1977.


                                                41


                                      ell

                                        ~~,,...:_ : v.` ` J ;\`,.


                                          iJ r 1" 11' 7 \~iS

                                          ( IJ7 ( n


                                        J J. Bc~ .