(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Wayy Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company



(1) The Agreement was violated when Class 'A' Equipment Operator J. R. Ball, was used to perform traclman's work on November 16, 17, 182 19, 22, 239 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, December 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20 21, 22, 23, 24 (holiday), 25 (holiday), 28, January 1 (holiday), 3, 4, 59 69 7, 10, ll, 12, 13 and 14, 1977 instead of recalling and using furloughed trackman Wm., S. Ma3lette for such service (System File MON-824/2-MG-1784).

(2) Trackman Wm. S, Mallette shall be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at his straight-time rate for each of the dates set forth in Part (1) above."

OPINION OF BOARD: From the record in this case we cannot determine
with certainty the circumstances under which
employe, J. R. BUM., acquired the right to exercise his seniority
either to displace on to Track Gang 1329-1118 or to be placed in a
vacancy on that Track Gang.

What we can determine from the record is that on or about November 15, 1976, Claimant ate was cut off Exam Track Gang 13291118 and fUrlanghed, and that, on that same date, e who is see'ar as Trackman to Claimant - came on as a ~ber of Track Gang 1,329-1118. From November 15, 1976 to January 1, 1977, Employe Bail was paid at the Class A Machine Operator rate for the service he performed with Track Gang 1329-1118. Thereafter, Employe Ball was paid at the Trackman's rate of par.

Carrier insists that the Machine Operator rate was paid to Employe Ball in error and that when the timekeeper's error was found, it was rectified.



Petitioner ..argues that such a contention is difficult to believe and that, in fact, Employe Ball was assigned as a Class A Machine operator but was used to perform Trackman's duties on a daily basis in violation of Rules 1(d) and 1(f) of the Agreement.

Oar review of the record before us fails to reveal any substantive proof of the contentions advanced by Petitioner. The fact situation shows that Mr. Ball had greater seniority as a Trackman than did the Claimant. The fact situation shows that the Track Gang in question consisted of a Foreman and five (5) Trackmea. The fact that Mr, B811 was improperly allowed the Machine Operator rate for a period of time does not, per se, imply that he was assigned as a Machine Operator. The respective seniority of the two people involved is the controlling factor. The employe with greater seniority was utilized. Such utilization does not cause the Junior employe to be aggrieved. We will dismiss the claim for lack of conclusive evidence.





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





        Claim dismissed.


                        NATICIAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST. awff~

        Executive Secretary


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