(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

(1) The Agreement was violated February 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1976 when Bridge and Building forces from Seniority District No. 14 were used to perform work on Seniority District No. 13 fSystem File T-W-115C/Ma-84(i) 4/30/76)

 (2) B&B Foreman H. Solem, First Class Carpenters J. Kuntz, R. Hamel, 0. Hagen and P. V. Mutnanski, Second Class Carpenter F. Hall and Truck Drivers D. Lang, R. 0. Brokken and N. R. Fossum each be allowed 20,4 hours of pay at their respective straight-time rates and 8 hours of pay at their respective time and one-half rates because of the aforesaid violation."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On claim dates, Fargo Seniority District 14 Bridge
 and Building Gang performed bridge repair work in
 Seniority District 13. Claimants assert that (with exceptions not here
 applicable) seniority is restricted by districts - as specified in
 Rule 6 - and thus, Carrier's action violated a number of agreement
 provisions.

 Carrier has asserted that there was an "emergency" situation. But, we note that the damage occurred on a Saturday, and repair work did not commence until Monday. In any event, our review of this record fails to suggest that Carrier may properly defend its actions based upon an "emergency" concept.

 In addition, Carrier asserts that the District 14 employes , were temporarily transferred to perform the repair work; that the District 13 employes were employed on other projects; seniority does not establish rights of exclusivity to work; and that, regardleas, Claimants were fully employed during the pertinent time.


        Rule 11 specifies:


        "A. An employe may be temporarily transferred by the direction of the Company for a period not to exceed six (6) months, from one seniority district or division to another, and he shall retain his seniority on the district or division from which transferred. Such employe shall have the right to work temporarily in his respective rank on the district or division to which transferred, if there are no qualified available employes on the district or division. The six (6) month period may be extended by agreement between the Company and the General Chairman. When released from such service the employe shall return to his former position."


We have noted the Carrier°s "seniority" argument at Page 6, et seq. of its Submission, but we do not feel that said contention controls this dispute.

        Award No. 20891 considered a similar dispute between these

parties in which the Carrier assigned an employe from one seniority
 district to perform work in another district. The Board held that
 Carrier, by that action "...violated the right of an employe holding
 seniority in that district to perform the work.'% Carrier stresses
 that the Referee, in Award 20891, did not consider Rule 11. But,
 certainly Award 21678 - also between these parties - considered Rule 11
 at length. In that sustaining Award, the Board found. a "temporary"
 use, and assumed ~at endo a "transfer." But, reasoned the Board the
 Carrier coatroll term he availability of the admittedly "qualified
 employes, No purpose is served by incorporating a lengthy exploration
 of the Rule 11 concept in this Award. Suffice it to say that even
 presuming that the parties meant for this type of a circumstance.to
 generate a "temporary transfer" (rather than a more clearly defined
 personnel shortage) the matter has been disposed of by Award 21678,
 Absent a finding that said Award is palpably erroneous, we are
 compelled to follow it.

 Our Award 19899 and subsequent Awards have fully explored the damage question. Award 22194 is not persuasive to a contrary conclusion,

                                                    F

                    Award Number 22374 Page 3

                    Docket Number NW-22096


        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

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: z~. ~I
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1979.