Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28589
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28871
 90-3-89-3-314
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Bessemer S Lake Erie Railroad Company

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

1. Carrier violated the effective agreement when it recalled Mr. R. C. Weygandt during his vacation to perform service when there were other employes available to perfo him for having worked during said vacation.

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Weygandt eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of his position for October 21, 22 and 23, 1987, which is in addition to any other earnings paid for such dates.

 3. Carrier shall now compensate furloughed employe J. A. Meakin eight (8) hours' pay at the rate of the position of Mechanical Department Clerk, Greenville, PA, for each of dates October 21, 22 and 23, 1987."

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 The relevant facts in this case reveal that the Claimant was on a scheduled five day vacation, beginning October 19, 1987. However, the person who filled the vacancy resulting from the Claimant's vacation took three days bereavement leave on October 21, 22 and 23, 1987. The Claimant then returned to work and covered the three days. The Organization contends that the next qualified furloughed employee should have been called to fill the vacancy and that the Claimant, because he worked and was paid eight (8) hours straight time, should be paid time and one-half for the three days at issue.
 Form 1 Award No. 28589
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28871
 90-3-89-3-314

 The Carrier mainly argues that this was an emergency, that the Claimant's return to service to f the National Vacation Agreement provides the Carrier with the right to defer an .employee's vacation and that, finally, Section 11 of that same Agreement allows for vacation to and agreed to by management.

 Clearly, the Vacation Agreement ("The Agreement") contemplates cooperation between the parties i there should not be an unrealistic rigidity when arranging and making changes in vacation dates.

 Section 5 of the Agreement in pertinent part states: "***[t]he management shall have the right t is given as much advance notice as possible, not less than ten (10) days notice shall be given excep the record that this was an emergency, such as no other employee was available or that no one else could perform the job.

 For all of the foregoing reasons and in recognition of Third Division Award 22211 which dealt with a factual situation nearly identical to the facts of this case, we will sustain the Claim.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: y
 ' Nancy J. e
              opff - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of October 1990.