Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27072
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26548
 88-3-85-3-291
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

 (Britherhoid 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 assigned Welder Foreman F. Bradley to perform overtime work on December 4, 1983 instead of using Contractor Protection Gang Foreman M. Butler who was available and willing to perform that overtime work (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-829).
(2) Claimant M. Butler shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at his time and one-half 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.


At the time this dispute arose, Claimant held seniority as a Foreman and was regularly assigned as a result of a bid to a Contractor Protection Gang. Claimant's designated rest days were Saturday and Sunday.
On Sunday evening, December 4, 1983, the Carrier assigned Welding Foreman F. Bradley (who was working) rather than Claimant (who was off) to perform eight hours of contractor protection work. Claimant asserts that he should have been called to perform the work and seeks compensation for eight hours at the time and one-half rate. The record further indicates that Bradley also performed protection work within the scope of his regular duties.
 Form 1 Award No. 27072
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26548
 88-3-85-3-291
 Initially, the Carrier's argument that the Claim is defective since
 no rule was cited is without merit. Although the Claim did not cite a rule,
 the record establishes that the parties fully understood the issues to concern
 the alleged violation of Rule 55. In its initial response to the Claim and
 thereafter, the Carrier cited Rule 55 as the basis for its denial. Moreover,
 during handling on the property, the Organization made specific references to
 the Rules it contended were violated. The Carrier cannot now assert that the
 Claim was defective for lack .)f a rule citation. See Third Division Award
 25559.

 With respect to the merits, we do not believe that the Organization has met its burden and we must therefore deny the Claim. First, Rule 55 states:



Under this Agreement, flagging in and of itself is not a position but is a duty performed by numerous different positions. Third Division Award 26385. The fact that Bradley performed protection work in the past underscores that conclusion. Whil - Contractor Protection" adds strength to the Organization's argument under Rule 55, we believe that the Organization's burden in this case nevertheless requires more of a showing to require the Carrier to bring in an employee on his day off and to defeat the fact that "(tjhere is nothing in the Agreement which cites in clear and unambiguous language the position of flagging" and that "the Carrier has the managerial right to assign various employees to accomplish needed tasks at its direction unless restricted by Agreement." Award 26385, supra. See also, Award 25559, supra, Third Division Award 25128. A key factor in the resolution of this case is that in the past, Bradley has performed protection duties as part of his job. Thus, although Claimant held the title of his assigned bid job, the record requires a conclusion that the Carrier assigned the work to an employee on Claimant's day off who has performed the disputed work a language has been pointed to that prohibits such an assignment.
Second, and for similar reasons, we do not find a violation of Rule 56 which states that "An employee will not be required to suspend work, after starting any daily assigned working period, for the purpose of absorbing overtime." Since the record as part of his normal duties and there is nothing in the record to show that Bradley was required to suspend work after the commencement of his duties to perform the disputed work, we are not satisfied that an absorption of overtime situation within the meaning of Rule 56 has been presented.
 Form 1 Award No. 27072
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26548
 88-3-85-3-291




                          By Order of Third Divisiin

Attest: ~z ..'

      Nancy J. a r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of May 1988.