John E. Cloney, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

              STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9953) that:


1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement, and in particular Rule 9, when it denied Mr. M. D. Diehl's request to rearrange in force to the 8:00 a.m., Agent-Telegrapher position at Carthage, Missouri, beginning December 15, 1982. (Carrier's
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. Diehl eight (8) hours' pay at pro rata rate for December 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 1982 and January 1, 1983, total amount being $1,480.67, as outlined in letter of claim dated February 1, 1983."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was the regularly assigned Star Agent Telegrapher
 at Pleasant Hill, Missouri. D. J. Stephens was assigned
 as Telegrapher at Carthage, Missouri, 115 miles south of Pleasant Hills.
 Stephens was scheduled to take personal leave and vacation from December 15 to
 31, 1982. Claimant requested to rearrange to the position for the duration of
 the vacancy under Rule 9(b). The request was denied and the position was pro
 tected by a clerical employee who was headquartered at Carthage. When Claim
 ant inquired why his request was denied he was notified by M. A. Armstrong it
 was "Due to the needs of the service . . . . "

        Rule 9(b) reads in part:


          "Until an agreement is reached establishing an extra board, temporary positions and vacancies which Carrier elects to fill will be filled by rearrangement of the regular assigned employees . . . . giving senior employees their preference


          The Clerks Extra Board Agreement of the parties states:

                      Award Number 26214 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-26132


          "1.(a) Extra Hoards are hereby established as listed in the attactynent hereto for the filling of temporary vacancies and providing vacation relief on positions subject to the Clerks Agreements.


          2.(b) In filling vacancies and providing vacation

          relief of five or more days duration, regularly

          assigned employees, including employees assigned to

          the extra board, may elect to rearrange pursuant to

          the provisions of Rule 9 of the basic agreement

          before applying the provisions of this extra board

          agreement."


(Carthage is one of the locations at which an Extra Hoard was established).

 Carrier contends there would have been additional cost for meals, lodging and travel expense if Claimant's request had been granted, because someone would have to be sent to Pleasant Hill to protect that assignment. Carrier contends a vacation vacancy is not a vacancy and Carrier is not obligated to incur a greater
It bases this position on Article 12 of the 1941 Vacation Agreement, parts of which state:

          "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement a Carrier shall not be required to assume greater expense because of granting of vacation than would be incurred if an employee were not granted a vacation and was paid in lieu therefor


          (b) . . . (vacation) absences from duty will not constitute 'vacancies' in their positions under any agreement . . . . "


Carrier also relies heavily on a June 23, 1981, letter to General Chairman Taggart from Director of Labor Relations Sayers regarding Rule 28 and Award No. 298 that:

          "We have agreed, however, to one exception to this principle and that is, in the case of an employee requesting to fill a vacancy under Rule 9 (Oldheading) on a position away from his headquarters poin will be considered eligible for the benefits provided in Rule 28 (on the Per Diem Agreement) provide filling this vacancy.

                      Award Number 26214 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-26132


          This is being done in the interest of encouraging employees to request to oldhead vacancies and with the understanding that Carrier will not be liable for more expenses than will be incurred if the vacancy is filled under other rules of the Agreement."


Carrier further argues mile 9 is general while the Agreement regarding vacations is specific and
Finally, Carrier contends that even if a violation of the Agreement wore to be found Claimant has suffered no loss and what is really being sought is a penalty.

 The Organization points out that on the property it brought to Carrier's attention correspondenc
In that correspondence M. A. Armstrong, one of the two persons to whom Claimant addressed his original request, had written:

          "The fact that the regularly assigned man, rather than the extra or furloughed clerk collects the per diem does not concern me, but the disruptive effect on the total work force causes me much concern. I have been told I have right to deny oldhead requests, but my experience has been that such denials a result in time claims, and always produces dissension, neither of which would be necessary if we would cancel a bad agreement . . . . "


This Board cannot agree with Carrier's position that Rule 9 is not applicable. The Extra Board Agreement specifically provides " . . . vacation relief of five or more days . . . employees . . . may elect to rearrange pursuant to . . . Rule 9." specific and clear. While an absence caused by a vacation does not constitute a "vacancy" because of Article 12 of the Vacation Agreement, the Extra Board Agreement provides methods for filling vacancies _and for providing vacation relief. Surely that is what is involved here.

 Believing as we do that Rule 9, and not the Vacation Agreement, governs this dispute, we are fac
                      Award Number 26214 Page 4

                      Docket Number CL-26132


Here Claimant's request was made to a Carrier Officer who had only recently written his criticism of the practice of "oldheading" and urged cancellation of "a bad agre "difficult to defend." Shortly thereafter when Claimant made his request he nevertheless denied it. When Claimant asked why his request was denied this same Official responded on December 16, 1982, "Due to the needs of the service your request for exercise rights under Rule 9A is denied." There was no mention of the Vacation Agreement or of additional expense to Carrier. The question of additional expense in fact was not raised until March 17, 1983. We believe these circumstances require the Agreement he protected by sustaining the Claim as made.
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 WAR D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest.

        Nancy J. ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1987.