(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE; (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned and used S. Garcia instead of V. Cadenas to fill a vacancy as laborer at Chicago, Illinois on January 1 and 2, 1979 (System File C#13/D-.2303).

 (2) Mr. V. C.denas be allowed twenty-four (24) hours of pay at his straight time rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION of BOARD: The Claimant was on a furlough, status and was recalled to
 sece and, worked on December 29y 1978. When he was
 told to report for work on Sunday, December 319 1978 he stated that he was
 unable to do so. The Crier needed laborers to perform snow removal'work
 on January 1 and 2, 1979 but instead of calling and assigning the Claimant
 to such work the Carrier called and used junior laborers even though' ac- .
 cording to the organization, the Claimant was available to perform the work.

 In the initial denial of the claim on the property the Carrier stated that because the Employe elected not to report to work on December 31 that it did not consider that it was obligated to call the Claimant on January 1 or 2. The Carrier concluded that since the Claimant was instructed to come to work on December 31 and was not told that he was laid off, "he should have come to work each day until instructed not to do so."

 Certain procedural questions have been raised concerning the consistency of the claim however the Board is of the view that the portion of the claim submitted to us in this proceeding is properly here for consideration on the merits.

 Although it is not totally clear from the handling of the dispute on the property, it appears' from a review of the Carrier's submission, that certain employes who worked on December 31, 1978 were advised to report on January 1 and January 2, 1979 and because a junior employe had "properly protected his assignment" on December 31 he would have been advised to report to work on January 1 and 2. Thus' the Carrier argues that it did not have an obligation to call this Employe on January 1 and 2.
                      Docket Number P,F,-23413


The Board notes that the record, as handled on the property' is not a model of clarity as to the actual factual circumstances. However, we have noted that a pertinent rule shows that seniority must be considered in assigning work and certain Awards cited by the Organization have indicated that inability to work on one day does not necessarily equate with inability to work on subsequent days.
        RTho rnnnwi 7a ci'Sant. ac t°.n an~r nrantina nr nrnrar3mra rrronrarnina


these employes regarding reporting to work in an automatic fashion and in absence of any compelling evidence in that regard the Board is of the view that the Carrier had some obligation to advise the Employe that work was available on January 1 and 2 and cannot defend its actions merely by stating that the Employe failed to report to work on December aim

 As noted above, this result is dictated solely by the record we have before us and may not be precedent to future disputes where there is a different factual showing.

 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 meanning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 219 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.- and

        That the Agreement was violated.


        Claim sustained.


                            PSATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSUMT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

        7.1-11


B
 ' ) Rosemarie Brasch ® Admznastrata,ve Assistant

 Dated`( at Chicago, Illinois, this