NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 T. Page Sharp, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 (
 (Illinois Terminal Railroad Company

 Award Number 23361
 Docket Number h:W-239911

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned an employs with no seniority as a Large Machine Operator (Mr. R. Reel) to the position of Large Machine Operator (backhoe) on January 30, 31 and February 1, 1980 instead of assigning Large Machine Operator W. R. Burg thereto (System File ITRR 1980-14).

 (2) Claimnat W. R. Burg shall be allowed twenty-four (24) hours of pay at the large machine operator's straight-time refer ten (10) hours of pay at the large machine operator's time and one-half rate and seventeen (17) hours of pay at the large machine operator's double-time rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF HOARD: On January 30, 1980 a severe snowstorm hit the St. Louis area
 including southern Illinois. This snowstorm complicated the
 operation of the Illinois Terminal. Company and made necessary extensive snow re
 moval activities. Some snow removal was taking place at McKinley Junction Yards
 at Madison, Illinois, which is twenty miles from Alton., Illinois, where Claim
 ant was working. There is conflict is the evidence whether operation of a bsck
 hoe machine was done in conjunction with a derailment or was utilized in saw
 removal, but the machine van utilized and operated by an employe who had senior
 ity as a Laborer. The regular operator had been assigned to fill s vacancy as
 Track Foreman. The Organization claims that Claimant who held seniority as a
 Large Machine operator should have been called to operate the backhoe.

 Although mangy defenses for utilizing the laborer are raised in the submissions, the correspondence exchanged on the property establishes that the (terrier relied on the arguments that 1) the seniority districts of the Claimant and the Laborer were different., therefore Claimant would have no preferential right to the fob sad 2) this was an emergency condition and Rule 6 of the applicable Agreement specifically ®aadates seniority filling of vacancies if possible ate. does net apply is an emergency situation.

 In the Agreement between the parties Rule 2 establishes classifications of employee. Rule 5 confines the seniority right of employee to their respective Defeat. Rule 4 states that seniority starts in bulletined positions from the date of the assignment. By inference the seniority which starts at the date of


such assignment establishes a seniority right in one of the classifications (A through G) under Group 2. Therefore Claimant had seniority is Group 2 B and the laborer in question had seniority in Group 2 F. Rule 6 concerns utilization of these employer. It reads:

        "(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this rule, vacancies or new positions, if possible, will be filled by employee holding seniority in the rank is which the vacancy or new position occurs. If not so filled., they will then be filled by employee in succeeding lower ranks is that seniority group, subject to provisions of the promotion rule."


After the Organization refuted the Carrier's claim that Claimant had no preferential seniority rights because of differing seniority districts the matter was dropped by the Carrier, appearing in no further correspondence or the submissions of Carrier. As previously stated many new matters were raised in the submissions sad these matters will not be considered by the Hoard. To raise new matters at that stage of the grievance process results is a procedural deficiency. The Boa 6.

 The Board considered the facts that Claimant had seniority as a large machine operates and the employs who operated the backhoe only had seniority as a laborer. Claimant should have been assigned to this temporary position unless there was an emergency which would make it practically impossible to make such assignment. The Board will take judicial notice that severe snowstorms is this section of time involved in implementing the assignment mandated by Rule 6 under these circumstances, the Board will grant that the first day of the stern would make it practically impossible to assign Claimant to operate the backhoe. However, absent a showing by Carrier that it was not possible for Claimant to travel in a safe sad reasonable manner the twenty miles to Madison. Claimant should have been assigned to operate the backhoe. No such showing was made, therefore the Agreement was violated.

 Nowhere-does the Organization point to any provisions of the Agreement that would entitle Claimant for the payment of the fob that he worked plus the payment fax the fob that he should have worked, Some awards have held that if the Carrier did not refute such a claim it will be granted. See Award 21222. In this case the (terrier specifically challenged the right to two payments is its letter of April 9, 1980. This Board holds that the Agreement was violated sad the Carrier should pay Claimant the difference in what he would have earned as the bacldzoe operator sad what he earned in his regular assignment for the days of January 31 and February 1, 1980.
                      award Number 23861 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-2399


        cZID72iGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record and all the evidences Finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hewing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute we respectively Carrier sad Fmployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21,, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained is accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJM24ENT HOAX

                            By Order of Third Division


Afi.CEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By . ,- --

 ,j semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago., Illinois., this 28th day of April 1982.
 l J O t

        Ci ~L

~' 7 (.
        .G' ~Y