Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26926
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26639
 88-3-85-3-643
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. 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 Agreement was violated when the Carrier called and used junior employes to perform overtime service on October 27, 1984 and November 3, 1984 instead of Track Foreman R. G. Gonzalez, Laborer-Driver A. Maldonado and Track Laborers R. S. Perez and M. Castillo (System File MW-85-28).

 (2) The claimants shall each be allowed twelve (12) hours of pay at their respective time and one-half overtime rates as a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 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 this dispute, a Track Foreman, a Laborer-Driver and two Laborers claim pay for overtime work performed on two separate occasions by Foreman Rayna, two Laborers and a Machine Operator.

 There is no dispute that Foreman Rayna and the three employees utilized in overtime service were junior to the Claimants. Further, there appears to be no dispute as to the general application of the seniority rules cited by the Organization.
 Form 1 Award No. 26926
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26639
 88-3-85-3-643

 As far as can be determined from the record, however, the Board finds no seniority violation in the Carrier's actions. According to the Carrier's uncontested statement, Rayna was used on the two occasions in his regularly assigned duties as Inspection and Repair Foreman. Upon determining the necessary work required, Rayn work. The Organization raises no questions concerning the assignment of Cortez. Cortez in turn called senior members of his gang to perform the work.

 Confusion seems to have developed by the apparent contention that the work was performed by Foreman Rayna and Laborers junior to the Claimants. As best as can be determined from the record, what actually occurred is that Rayna acted in his capacity as Inspection and Repair Foreman, and the work was assigned to the senior Foreman (Cortez) and his gang.

 The Carrier contends that this is regular practice under such circumstances and that there is no seeking out senior Laborers from among the seniority district. The Board finds no evidence that the Carrier failed to follow seniority as regularly interpreted under such circumstances.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Ngncy J. D r Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1988.