PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier used section laborers from Roadmaster's Seniority District No. 2 to perform track work on Roadmaster's Seniority District No. 4 on February 3, 4,'5, 6 and 9, 1981 (System File D-981/MW-13-81).
(2) Furloughed Section Laborers B. C. Sanchez, T. Medina, T. L. Aguirre, Jr. and B. J. Bailey each be allowed forty (40) hours of pay at their respective rates because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization brings this claim for 40 hours backpay
 lost by each of four laborers in Seniority District No. 4 when the Carrier assigned laborers from Seniority District 'No. 2 to perform work in Roadmaster's District No. 4. By making this assignment, the Organization argues, the Carrier violated Rule 6(c) of the Agreement, which provides, in part, "... all seniority rights of all employees shall be confined to the seniority district and subdepartment where employed." The Organization alleges that the four Claimants had all been furloughed and were available and qualified to work, but were not called for the assignment, as they should have been.
The Carrier insists that no Rules were violated. It argues that the work in question was not the exclusive province of Seniority District No. 4 employes because there was a past practice of allowing employes in other seniority districts to do that work. The Carrier also denies that the Claimants were available for work at that site. Finally, the Carrier raises two procedural arguments: that there was a material alteration of the claim and a failure to show that the Claimants were 'employees involved' under Rule 29(a).
After review of the record and the cited cases, the Board concludes that the claim must be sustained. Rule 6(c) is a clear prohibition against assigning employes out of their seniority districts. The Carrier has offered no evidence of a contrary past practice which could alter that rule. Furthermore, it has been shown that all four Claimants were available for the work and that they complied with the rule for notifying the Carrier of their desire to be called. In the case of the fourth Claimant, B. C. Sanchez, his letter of December 29, 1980 merely stated that he would prefer to be recalled to Fort Garland, not that this preference was exclusive.


                    Docket Number MW-24757


Accordingly, the claim must be sustained. Each of the four Claimants shall be compensated in accordance with item No. 2 of 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 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 was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: .
        Nancy J. .rer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 1985.