NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 John B. IsRocco, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Award Number 23376
 Docket Number CL-23397

 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employ es

 (Duluth, Misssbe end Iron Range Railway Company

(1) The Carrier violated the established practice# under:;tanding, provision:: and Rules of the Cler Montgomery), to the exclusion of senior employe, Jeffery H. Oberbillig, who made request for the position in accordance with the Agreement.

 (2) The Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. J. H. Oberbillig eight (8) hours pay, per day, as Agent-Saginaw, for the following days: May 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, 1979.

 OPINION CF BOARD: L7sfmant seeks eight boars o2 pay per day for May 3,9 4,
 5j, &and 9s 1979 alleging that he should have been assigned to the positioa.of A®ent-Saginaw on those dates.
The incumbent holder of the agency at Saginaw went on vacation leaving the position temporarily open for five days. The Carrier selected an employe with less seniority than the claimant to fill the position during May 3, 4, 5, 8 and g, 1979. The ,junior employe had performed as a relief agent at Saginaw for one-week in April, 7.979. Between January, 1978 and March, 1979, claimant was regularly assigned to a freight agent position at t;eenan Yard. The dispute has been properly progressed to this hoard.

 The Organization contends the Carrier violated Rules 72(b) and 12(c) of the working agent when it assigned the junior employe to the temporary agency opening at Saginaw. Rule 12(c) givea,3azrloughed employee the right to fill short-vaeeacies on a seniority basis. According to the Organization, Rule I2(b) triggers the assignment preferences in Rule 8(a) requiring the Carrier to-assign the most senior worker if he has sufficient fitness and ability to -perform the duties of the position. Due to claimant's able performance of his duties as an agent at Keenan Yard for fifteen months, the Organization asserts claimant has amply demonstrated sufficient ability to perform the duties of'Agent-Saginaw. On an ancilliary issue, the Organization states the Carrier


Saginaw in April, 179 since he (as well as the ,junior employs) had requested an opportunity to perform relief work pursuant to Supplement No. 5 of the working agreement. The Carrier's arguments are twofold. First, Rules 8 and 12 of the working agreement are inapplicable because Section 12 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement specifically excludes temporary openings caused by a vacation from being construed as vacancies for purposes of assigning a replacement. Second, regardless of whether or not Rule 12 (c) of the working agreement applies, the Carrier exercised reasonable discretion in determining that the claimant lacked the requisite fitness and ability to f argues that each agency position inherently involves unique duties so that the claimant was unqualified to replace the vacationing incumbent. Since the junior employs received training at Saginaw in April, 1979, the Carrier maintains it was ,justified in using the ,junior employs on the dates in controversy. Lastly, the Carrier asserts that its assignment of the ,junior employs to of Supplement No. 5.

        Section 12 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement states:


        "(b) As employees exercising their vacation privileges will be compensated under this Agreement during their absence on vacation, retaining 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 position of a vacationing employee is to be filled and regular relief employee is not utilised, effort will be made to observe the principle of seniority. Flnphaeie Added).


From the express language in Section 72 (b).9 the opening at Saginaw °. or five days in May, 1979 due to the incumbent's vacation did not constitute a vacancy under the working agreement. Third Division Awards No. 22416 ~Yagoda); Award No. 20 of Public Law Board 2035 (Seidenberg); But See& Third Division Award No. 7176 (Carter). Thus, the carrier need not strictly °ollov the preference requirements in Rule 12(c) and Supplement No. 5 of the working agreement though the provisions of Rule 12 (c) are sometimes consistent with the obligations imposed on the Carrier by Section'12(b) of the National Vacation Agreement. Third Division Award No. 14621 (Engelstein); Award ^10. 55 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 169 (Wyckoff). The Carrier has a duty to exert a genuine effort to observe seniority when assigning replacements under Section 12 (b) No. 22416 (Yagoda). However, the Carrier is given some latitude in Pilling vacation vacancies as long as it made an effort to observe seniority. The Carrier may properly consider other factors having a rational relationship to performance of the position. In this case, the Carrier decided not to strictly adhere to seniority because, in the Carrier's view, the ,junior employs was qualified and t
                  Award Number 2336 Rage 3

                  Docket Number CL-23397


position. From this record, we do not find sufficient proof that the claimant had sufficient ability to step into the Saginaw opening. The ,junior employe had worked at Saginaw and so he vas qualified. Even though claimant performed as an agent at Keenan Yard, there is no evidence that he acquired sufficient ability to replace the incumbent at Saginaw. Thus, the Carrier did not abuse its discretion in filling the vacation vacancy with the ,junior employe.

        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 vas not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of September-1981a