(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES 7b DISPUTE: (The Denver 6 Rio Grande Western Railroad Company


1. Carrier violated Rules 11(e)(t)(u), 16(g) and other related rules of the Agreement, when on September 1, 1982, it called back Ms. V. Bargas, junior employe, to the north yard extra board instead of Ms. S. Munoz, senior empl o ye.
2. Carrier will now be required to pay (at pro-rata) Ms. Munoz guarantee, per Rule 11(e), from September 1, 1982, to continue until this claim is resolved, or until such time she would have been cut from the extra board.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was furloughed from the position of Calculating
 Machine Operator as of August 6, 1982, but was permitted to fill a vacation vacancy the following week from August 9 to August 13, 1982. Upon her being furloughed, the Claimant gave timely notification to the Carrier of her availability for the North Yard Extra Board. At that time, since there was no one junior to her on the Extra Board, she was also furloughed from the Extra Board.
Short-term vacancies occurred for September 1-9 and September 23-28, 1982, and an Employe junior to the Claimant was recalled from furlough to fill these vacancies. The Carrier stated that it bypassed the Claimant in favor ofthe junior Employe beca assignments in the short-term vacancies, while the Claimant was not qualified.
The Organization relies on Rule 16, Reducing Forces, which reads in pertinent part as follows:


The Carrier, however, states that a "qualified° employee was required for the short vacancies and, in defense of its right for such qualification, points to Rule 11, which provides:




                    Docket Number CL-25391


The Carrier argues that the Claimant, in her furloughed status, was an "unassigned" employee and her lack of qualification meant that she could not be "Utilized· for the short vacancies.
Rule 16(g) is, however, clear, precise and without exception. It states that furloughed employees shall be returned in the order of their seniority. If there were to be exceptions as to qualification, such would necessarily be contained in that rule. Rule 11(b) is somewhat less precise in that it concerns only whether an employee can be "utilized". Put another way, Rule 16(g) does not specify recall by seniority _and qualification. It simply states, as applicable here, that the Claimant was entitled to be offered recall prior to a junior employee.
Claimant shall receive compensation for all time worked by the junior Employe in September, 1982.
        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 in accordance with the opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest.
        Nancy J. yr,~r - Exec Live Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of May 1985.