Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26854
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26728
 88-3-85-3-482
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to recall furloughed Trackman V. Phillips to service January 25 through February 25, 1984 (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-920).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, furloughed Trackman V. Phillips shall be allowed one hundred eighty-four (184) hours of pay at the trackman's straight time rate."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

In the instant case, the Organization argues that the Carrier violated the applicable Rule by fa Trackman's position. Claimant was furloughed and the senior qualified employee. The Organization cla 25, 1984, of Rule 20(a) which states in part:
Form 1 Award No. 26854
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26728
 88-3-85-3-482

 As to the Trackman position and the facts of this case the parties are in complete disagreement. Throughout the case on the property the organization claimed that the Carrier increased the number of Trackmen when they disqualified another employee as Engineer Work Equipment Operator and assigned him a Trackman's position on Gang Y-232. The organization argues that the Carrier is restricted by Rule 20 to such assignment by seniority order. Claimant having had seniority was not recalled in violation thereof.

 The Carrier argues that the employee assigned worked the position as a result of disciplinary proceedings in his same gang and no additional force increase occurred. The Carrier states for the record that it did not create a new position, nor did it increase the force.

 In the instant case this Board is faced with interpreting Rule 20. We read that Rule as violated by the Carrier when it permitted a junior employee to work the position of Trackman. Carrier's arguments that .this did not constitute an increase in the force or a new position miss the mark. The Rule restricts Carrier "when the number of trackmen in a gang is increased" which are the facts at bar. Nothing in the Agreement language permits Carrier's action. An employee a position to which seniority rights accrue. There is no denial on the property that Claimant was the senior qualified applicant and, therefore, denied his rights to recall in violation of the Rule. This Board finds that other ex parte arguments presented by the Carrier come too late for consideration.

 As to the appropriate remedy, the Carrier did argue on the property that the requested compensation was excessive. Carrier argued that Claimant's records indicated that he did not file his furlough papers until February 21, 1984, and was therefore not eligible for the relief requested. Having found a violation and dispute over compensation, we will sustain the claim, but direct the Carrier and Organization to consult the work records to determine the basis of payment. Payment to the Claimant should be based on a joint review of the Carrier's records to determine the actual number of workdays due the Claimant.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
                  'Nancy J. e r -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.