Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26944
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26421
 88-3-85-3-152
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon 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 and refused to permit 'B' Foreman Richard Foulds to displace 'B' Foreman R. L. Miller on Inter-Regional Rail Gang No. 201 effective July 28, 1983 (System Docket CR-670).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Mr. Richard Foulds shall be allowed the difference between what he should have earned for all regular and overtime hours as a 'B' Foreman on Inter-Regional Rail Gang No. 201 and what he did earn in the lower rated trackman's position beginning July 28, 1983 and continuing until such violation has been corrected or discontinued."

 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.

R. L. Miller and the Claimant possess Foreman's seniority on Interregional Seniority District II class. Prior to July 28, 1983, both Miller and Claimant held Foreman positions in Rail Gang No. 101 Seniority District III. Miller handled the front end of the dual rail gang and was in charge of laying the dual rail, while Claimant worked the rear end being involved with anchor application. Rail Gang No. 101 was abolished on July 28, 1983. Beginning August 8, 1983, Rail Gang 201 started work on the Pittsburgh Division, Interregional Seniority District II2. This was the first
 Form 1
 Page 2

 as follows:

 Award No. 26944
 Docket No. MW-26421
 88-3-85-3-152

 time that a dual rail gang had worked in Seniority District #2 and no Foreman in Seniority District lit was qualified to work the front end of a dual rail gang. In order to get the work started, Foreman Miller was temporarily assigned to Rail Gang 201 to instruct Foreman F. M. Trevost on the front end operation of dual Rail Gang No. 201. Foreman Miller worked with the gang through the month of August, 1983, at which time he returned to Seniority District #1. Neither Miller nor Claimant possess seniority as Foreman on Interregional Seniority District #2.

 The Organization relies on Rule 3, Section 1 and Section 4 which are

 "RULE 3 - SELECTION OF POSITIONS
Section 1. Assignment to position.

 In the assignment of employees to positions under this Agreement, qualification being sufficient, seniority shall govern.
The word 'seniority' as used in this Rule means, first, seniority in the class in which the assignment is to be made, and thereafter, in the lower classes, respectively, in the same group in the order in which they appear on the seniority roster.

 Section 4. Filling temporary vacancies.

 (a) A position or vacancy may be filled temporarily pending assignment. When new positions or vacancies occur, the senior qualified available employees will be given preference, whether working in a lower rated position or in the same grade or class pending advertisement and award.

 When furloughed employees are to be used to fill positions under this Section, the senior qualified furloughed employees in the seniority district shall be offered the opportunity to return to service. Such employees who return and are not awarded a position or assigned to another vacancy shall return to furlough status.

 (b) An employee so assigned may be displaced by a senior qualified employee working in a lower rated position or in the same grade or class, provided displacement is made prior to
 Form 1 Award No. 26944
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26421
 88-3-85-3-152





Based on the facts and the relevant Rules, the Organization believes the Claimant was entitled to the vacancy in question. The Organization recognizes that the Claimant did not possess seniority on District 1. However, when the Carrier went outside District 1 to District 2, they assert the Claimant's seniority over Miller controlled. Moreover, they do not believe that the Carrier established that the Claimant was unqualified.

 The Carrier argues that for several reasons the claim is invalid. (1) they assert there was no vacancy in Rail Gang 201, instead Miller was only acting as an instructor. (2) they argue that the provisions of Section 4 of Rule 3 are limited to the seniority district in which the employees possess seniority. (3) they contend the Claimant wasn't qualified. And, (4) they contend no violation occurred on July 28 as the claim indicates since Miller was not assigned until August 8, 1983.

 It is the conclusion of the Board that the claim must be sustained. First, there is no reason not to consider the work Mr. Miller performed with Gang 101 on District No. 2 as a "vacancy" or "position" within the meaning of Rules 3 or 4. Assignment as an acting instructor or facilitator is not a reason, based on any of the language found in the Agreement, to exempt the Carrier from the application of Rules 3 or 4.

 Second, the Carrier contends Rules 3 and 4 only apply to Districts on which seniority is held. The Carrier is plainly wrong. So long as the Carrier went outside the confines of District 1, the Claimant was entitled to compete against Miller based on his seniority in the production gang "B"
 Form 1 Award No. 26944
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-26421
 88-3-85-3-152

 foreman classification. This result is dictated, if not by the specific language of Section 4 (e), by the general precept of seniority implied by Rule 3. This is also consistent with previous Board Awards involving similar circumstances. See Third Div

qualified. Certainly the priority operation of seniority is premised on
 sufficient fitness and ability. However, there is insufficient evidence in
 this record to support the Carrier's affirmative defense that the Claimant did
 not meet the minimum qualifications required by the position. While working
 on the front end of a gang might have made Miller more qualified than the
 Claimant it does not per se or necessarily mean that the Claimant's qualifi
 cations weren't "sufficient." We would need more explanation than the blind
 assertion to conclude, because he only worked the rear end of a gang (anchor
 application), that he couldn't have satisfactorily assisted Gang 101 on
 District 2.

 Last, it is not a procedural flaw that Miller didn't start in the vacancy until August 8, 1983. Obviously, while not a basis to dismiss the claim, it is a relevant consideration for remedy purposes.

 In view of the foregoing, the claim is sustained and the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the time period Miller spent in the vacancies.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attes
      Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


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