(Brotherhood of Railway. Airline and Steamship Clerks ( Freight Handlers. Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Soo Line Railroad Company

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

(1) Carrier violated Rules 3, 5, 6, 7s 16, 17, 23, 39(d), 49 and other rules of the effective Agreement when a furloughed employe from Seniority District No. 33 was utilized to fill short vacancies in Seniority District No. 32; depriving employee assigned in Seniority District No. 32 of overtime work opportunities.

 (2) The following Claimants shall be compensated on each of the specified dates for 8 hours at the rate of time and one-half of the position for which time is claimed, or their regular rate of pay, whicheve_w is higher:






(3) This is a continuing claim for eight (8) hours compensation at the rate of time and one-half of the position for which time is claimed, or their regular rate of pay, whichever is higher, for each and every date thereafter that the carrier continues to violate the effective Agreement in a similar manner. claimants shall be the senior available employe on the date of the violation and can be determined by a joint check of the Carrier's records.

 OPINION OF BOARD: on March 29 and 30 and on April 8, 13, 14, and
 15, 1978, Carrier assigned a furloughed protected employe from Seniority District 33 to fill short-term vacancies in Seniority District 32. This employe held no seniority rights in District 32. Six employes filed claims in which each requested pay at the punitive rate for one day, 8 hours, of lost overtime work. The claim progressed on the property and was denied at all levels. It is nosy before this Board for resolution.
                    Docket Number CL-22995


The organization argues that Carrier does not have a right to assign involuntarily a furloughed employe from Seniority District 33 to fill vacancies in Seniority District 32. Carrier must offer the available work to qualified employes holding seniority in District 32. There are no schedule rules that allow otherwise. The Organization also argues that the instant claim is a continuing one and that, as such, future incidents of the type shown here shall be included in an award. The Organization maintains that this dispute is properly before this Division and is not a dispute that should have been submitted to Special Board 605, as Carrier alleges.

 Carrier argues that it does have a right to assign a furloughed protected employe to available short-term vacancies, as
 long as it is done in accordance with the seniority rules of the _
 Agreement. It obtained, this right from the February 7, 1965,: National
 Agreement. Carries. claims that this dispute was handled in accordauce
 With that Agreement and that it was in keeping with the appropriate
 seniority iules of the schedule Agreement pertaining to the filing of
 short vacancies specifically Rule 17. Carrier also asserts that no
 rule in the agreement specifies that employes must be offered over
 time if a furloughed employe from another roster is available to fill
 the vacancy at straight time.

 Carrier infers from Rule 3(c)(aa inference it claims justifies its position) that it can involuntarily assign a furloughed protected employe to another seniority district without allowing that employe to accrue seniority in the second district, as would be necessary if a voluntary transfer to the instant dispute is not properly before this Board, since it is a dispute over the February 7, 1965, Agreement. It should therefore have been processed under the procedure of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

 After a careful review of the record, this Board is persuaded that the instant case does involve an interpretation of the February 7, 1965a Agreement, specifically the application of Article II, section three. Carrier is clearly basing its action on authority that it thinks it derives from that article. Wheth this Board to decide. This claim is properly a claim that belongs under the procedures of Special Adjustment Board No. 605 and, as such, will be dismissed by this Board.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        Mat the parties waived oral hearing;

                    Award Number 23043 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-22995


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21j, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A _W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD AWLSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:

 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Qiicago, I11.inois, this 14th day of November 1980.