Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28287
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27999
 90-3-87-3-541
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

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

(a) Carrier violated the intent and provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Barstow, California on April 29, 1986 when it failed and/or refused to call F. L. Bonilla to protect overtime on April 29, 1986, and

 (b) Claimant F. L. Bonilla shall now be compensated four (4) hours and thirty (30) minutes at the rate of time and one half of Claimant's regularly assigned Position N received for this date as a result of such violation."

 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.

The pivotal question in this dispute is whether Carrier was obligated to call Claimant when the incu impelled to leave his assignment early on April 29, 1986. The duty hours of this position were 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., while Claimant's regular assignment ran from 7:00 A.M. t parties considered such vacancies to be short vacancies as that term is understood under Rule 14-B i to this Rule. Consequently, it maintained that since there were no qualified and available off-in-force reduction employees to fill the vacancy, which in effect amounted to the balance of the shift, 6:35 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., it moved another employee working the same shift hours to Position No. 6055.
 Form 1 Award No. 28287
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27999
 90-3-87-3-541

 Contrawise, the Organization contended that such action violated Rule 32-G, since the defining conditions under which short vacancies were filled under Rule 14 were not present and accordingly the assignment should have been filled on an overtime basis. In other words, the assignment should have been filled by an available off-in-force reduction employee or a senior qualified regularly assigned employee at the point who has served written notice of his desire to protect such service. It asserted that when Carrier failed to observe the order of precede overtime. In essence, the Organization argued that since the instant circumstances necessitated the
In considering this case, we agree that vacancies of the type that developed herein are short vacancies and could be filled under Rule 14. However, Carrier is obligate Rule 14, specifically B and C, when filling the position as a short vacancy. In the case herein, the employee who filled the remaining hours of Position No. 6055 on April 29, 1986, was not the senior qualified off-in-force reduction employee or the seni who served appropriate written notice. He in effect was moved from his regular position to co there is no provision in Rule 14 for filling short vacancies in that manner and since there is no other Agreement Rule for filling short vacancies, Carrier, of necessity, would on an overtime basis. Upon the record, then, we must conclude that Rule 32-G was violated. Claim sustained only for four (4) hours and thirty (30) minutes at the pro rata rate.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1990.