(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( Texas and Louisiana Lines

(1) The Carrier violated the current Clerks' Agreement at Houston, Texas, when on March 5, 1976, it called and used an employe who was not available for service to fill a vacancy on Car Order Clerk Position No. 20.

 (2) Carrier shall now be required to allow Mr. R. L. Stolte one (1) day's pay at the time and one-half rate of Car Order Clerk Position No. 20 for March 5, 1976.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, Mr. R. L. Stolte, is the regular
 occupant of General Clerk Position No. 232,
 assigned Saturday through Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. at the
 Carrier's Freight Station, Houston, Texas. On Friday, March 5, 1976,
 there existed a one-day vacancy on Car Order Clerk Position No. 20
 with hours 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. On March 4, 1976 the Carrier
 received a prepared overtime request from the Claimant indicating
 the positions to which he wished to move up and/or work overtime on.
 Position 20 was not one of the positions the Claimant desired to
 protect. The request, received at 5:45 a. m. on March 4, 1976, became
 effective 16 hours after the receipt thereof, which was 9:45 p.m.,
 March 4, 1976. The Carrier called and used Clerk B. E. Rittenhouse
 to fill the vacancy on Position No. 20 an March 5, 1976. Under
 Section 10 of Addendum No. 6, Mr. Rittenhouse was not available for
 a call to work Position No. 20 because he had laid off when called
 to work a vacancy on Position No. 226 which had a 6:00 a.m. starting
 time that same date, March 5, 1976, and was thus marked off the
 Extra Board. By letter dated March 9, 1976, the Claimant filed the
 instant claim for one day's pay at the time and one-half rate of
 Position No. 20 because the Carrier used Mr. Rittenhouse to fill the
 position when he was not available for a call.


The record before the Board indicates that Mr. Rittenhouse was ineligible for a call. The record also clearly indicates that the Claimant was also ineligible for a call. If the Carrier had called the Claimant, it would have made the Carrier susceptible to a claim from someone else. Since the essence of the claim is that the Carrier called an ineligible person to work the position and the Claimant himself was ineligible to work the position, we believe that a sustaining Award would be most inappropriate and unreasonable. We are well aware of the line of Awards of this Board that hold that the standing of an individual Claimant vis-a-vis another employe who might have a better right to make the claim is no defense for the Carrier; and we have no intention of attempting to modify such awards. Our narrow holding is limited to the facts of this particular case, involving as it has the Claim of an ineligible employe that an ineligible employe worked the position in question.

        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 d_spute 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 not violated.


                    A W A R D r'AY 2 ° I~IU


        Claim denied. J pv


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


                r.


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April 1978.