Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATWENT O' CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signal men on the Missouri Pacific Railroad
 Company:

 On behalf of Signalman R. G. Millsap, Gang No. 1711, Wagoner, Oklahoma., for the time and one-half rate, addition to wages already allowed him during the period December 19 through December 300 19772 because he was required to protect vacation vacancy of Signal Maintainer at Claremore, Oklahoma."
 OPINION OF BOARD: In our review of this case., we agree with the
 Organization that the basic fact patterns in Third Division Award 16498 are similar to this dispute. In both cases a regularly assigned signalman was removed from his bulletined position to protect a vacation vacancy,, although the employe in Award 16498 was assigned to a d1ffereat shift.
case that Agreement Rule 407(c) was no basis for taking the signalman off
 his regular assignment,, notwithstanding, his protestation.. since the Rule
 by definition requires that the senior available employe assigned to a
 gang working on territory., where avacancy occurs, must request it. It does
 not require in the absence of that clearly specified condition, that the
 vacancy must be assigned to the junior signalman. It simply allows the
 senior available employe to fill the vacation vacancy., if he so requests.
 It is a volitional alternative to Carrier's correlative prerogative to
 select an available employe of the same class covered by the Agreement.
 Thus Rule 407(c) does not permit Carrier to redeploy a junior employe
 assigned to a gang working on the territory of the Signal Supervisor
 where the vacancy occurs. It does permit the senior available employe
 the option of exercising his seniority status, if he wishes to work
 the vacation vacancy.


In Third Division Award 16498, Article 12(b) of the National Vacation Agreement was never cited by the parties or considered by the Board. It was, however, raised in the instant dispute. We will quote it for ready reference.

        "As employes exercising their vacation privileges

        will be compensated under this Agreement during

        their absence on vacation, retaining their other

        rights as if they had remained at work, such

        absences from duty will not constitute 'vacancies'

        in their positions under any Agreement. When the

        sition of a vacationing employe is to be -filled

        9 regular relief employe is not utilized, efforts

        will be made to observe the principle of seniarity.~"


While it is arguable, under this provision, that a vacation vacancy might not be covered by Role 407(c), since such absences from duty will not constitute vacancies Careful reading of Article 12 (b) reveals that when the vacation vacancy position is to be filled and a regular relief employe is not used, effort will be made to observe the principle of seniority. It does not

 preclude ccannottconsider Third Division Awards 46446,6015 and e7346 relative e vacation vacancy the suspension of work and the absorption of overtime, since they were
 never cited on the property during the claim's progression. The record
 does not show that Carrier failed to observe the seniority principle,
 as per Article 12 (b) (Supra) when it assigned Claimant to the Signal
 Maintainers position at Claremore., Oklahoma for two weeks, when the in
 cumbent of that position was on vacation from December 19 through
 December 30, 1977. It was consistent with Carrier's stated practice,
 that when no senior signal maintainers volunteered for a vacation vac
 ancy position, the junior signalman would be assigned to fill it.

 In Third Division Award 21014, involving an analogous fact situation on that portion of the Carrier, formerly comprising the T&P Railway, we pointedly noted the relevancy of Article 12 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement. But in that case, unlike Third Division Award 16498, we were compelled by the parties arguments to consider the pertinency of Article 12(b). We stated, in pert, that:

          "The Organization's theory in'these claims is that Claimant's temporary transfer to the vacation assignment was invalid and therefore he should be compensated for on the basis that the hours and conditions of his regular assignment were operative during all the days of the temporary work. After careful evaluation and study of all the rules cited by Petitioner, we must conclude that there is no rule support for Claimant's position.

c:Award Number 23059 page 3
 Docket Number SG-23007

                "We note that in the Vacation Agreement in Rule 12(b), the last sentence reads: 'When the position of a vacationing employe is to be filled and regular relief employe is not utilized, effort will be made to observe the principle of seniority.' " We held that: "We find that OLrrier acted within the provisions of the Vacation Agreement in making the assignments herein, and there is no sharing that Claimant was unduly burdened when he returned to his regular position, which had been blanked."


        We concur with Claimant that Rule 1+07(c) does not require that the junior employe assigned, to a gang working on the territory of the Signal Supervisor, where the vacancy occurs be assigned to the vacancy, if the senior available employe does not request it. But we find that Carrier was not estooped from assigning him to fill temporarily the vacation position,. pursuant to Article 12(b),.as long as it observed the principle of seniority. There is no showing that it did not observe this requirement. We will, therefore, deny the claim.


                FMINGS: 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 Lsbor 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


                Claim denied.


                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJTM24MT BOARD

                                  By Order of Third. Division


        ATTEST: ' Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 14th day of November 1980.