(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Des Moines Union Railway Company

1) Carrier violated the Clerks Rules Agreement at Des~Moines, Iowa, when it failed and/or refused to honor Employs L. R. Kaiser's request to work vacation vacancy on Freight Inspector Position from May 30, 1978 through June 30, 1978.

 2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Employe L. R. Kaiser an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Freight Inspector Position for each workday May 30, 1978 to and including June 30, 1978.

 OPINION OF HOARD: The Claimant, a regularly assigned Relief Clerk, re
 quested that he be allowed to work vacation relief on
 the Freight Inspector position for a one-month period. The request was denied.

 The Organization asserts that if, under Article 12(b), the terrier fails to use a regular relief employs, it must "make as effort" to observe the principle of seniority in filling the vacation vacancy. Article 12 (b) states:



We have noted that in the initial denial of the Claimant's request, he was advised that the arrangements made to provide the relief coverage were aimed at accomplishing the work "in the most efficient meaner."
                    Docket Number CL-23117 !


In subsequent correspondence, the same Carrier Official raised the question of qualifications to perform the duties and -thereafter, the General Manager recited an asserted past practice of moving employee around "to get the best qualified employs on the vacation position."

 In response, the Employes presented information which sought to demonstrate qualifications to perform the work. The Carrier disputed that contention, pointing out that the Employe had not presented any information indicating that he had ever worked the Freight Inspector's position and it reiterated the concepts of past practice.

 We have considered the Organization's presentation is this case and we have noted that the Carrier has altered its positions as the matter was presented on the property. Nonetheless, the (terrier has presented all. of its various defenses while the matter was under review on the property. Whether framed in the concepts of Article 12 or of the past practice, we are of the view that the Employee have not presented to us the basis for a sustaining award, and accordingly we will deny the claim.

        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 sad the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier sad Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 19347

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
        That the Agreement was not violated. ~-i -' (, - j ~ ^ ' -

        A F A R D ~~ ~.~,'S ~ '! :.


                                      \C~/c : ;, ,

                                      -, n

        Claim denied. ~ °~ Gi`ce


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSMNT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of August 1981.