Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28687
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28568
 91-3-88-3-438
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister 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 assigned junior employe J. Herendeen instead of Mr. R. Tuomi to perform overtime work at Steelton on August 1, 1987 (System File 26-87).

 (2) As a consequence. of the aforesaid violation, Mr. R. Tuomi shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at the B-Machine Operator's time and onehalf 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.

On Saturday, August 1, 1987, the Carrier found it necessary to perform overtime work at Steelton track-liner, a Class "B" machine. The overtime work was offered to all qualified employees at Steelt Class "B" machine operator. Herendeen aitcepted the work at Steelton and was compensated for eight (8) hours at the overtime rate. The Claimant, who is also employed as a Trackman at Proctor, is senior to Herendeen as a Class "B" machine operator, but was not called for this service. The Claim has been made on his behalf for eight (8) hours pay at the overtime rate.
 Form 1
 Page 2

 Award No. 28687
 Docket No. MW-28568
 91-3-88-3-438

 While the Carrier explains why Herendeen may have been called for the service, it does not contend that he was the appropriate employee to be used. Rather, the Carrier asserts it should have directed the junior employee at Steelton to work. It relies upon Rule 20(b), which governs overtime and reads as follows:

 "All other overtime will be given to the senior qualified available employee working in the classification at the headquarters point where the overtime is to be performed. At the Duluth Ore Docks, the ore docks and the storage facility will be considered separate headquarters points.

 Exception: Machine operators, assigned by bulletin to specific machines utilized in track department operations, shall be entitled to the overtime connected with the operation of such machine.

 Note: In the application of paragraph (b), a senior employee may waive his right to overtime providing a junior qualified employee working in the classification at the headquarters point is available to work such overtime. In the event it is necessary to force an employee to work overtime, the most junior qualified employee in the classification at the headquarters point will be required to work such overtime."

 Based on this Rule, the Carrier asserts the proper Claimant in this
 case is the junior employee at Steelton, who should have been forced to work
 overtime. The fault in this logic is that this employee declined to work.
 Although the Carrier contends the junior Stee'ttron employee could have (and
 should have) been forced to work, he no longer had a right to claim the work
 after refusing it. This would seem to create a situation where the Carrier
 might be free to call any employee with impunity. The Agreement appears to be
 silent with respect to whom should be called for overtime if nobody is avail
 able at the point.
 r
 In the absence of a specific Rdle governing the calling of employees for overtime under these circumstances, we must look to the Agreement for a general Rule. Rule 2, the Seniority Rule, contains the following provisions:

 "(b) Rights accruing to employees under their seniority entitle them to consideration for positions in accordance with their relative length of service with the Company as hereinafter provided."
 Form 1 Award No. 28687
 Page 3 Docket No. ;MW-28568
 91-3-88-3-438

 While the Carrier argues the above Rule is not applicable because there was no position involved, we find the term "position" to be broad enough to encompass this type of service. The term is not limited to positions that are subject to bulletin. Further, Rule 4(c) dictates the manner of filling positions and vacancies which are not subject to bulletin. The Rule reads as follows:







In accordance with the third step of Rule 4(c), the Claimant, as the senior qualified employee should have been called for the overtime service in lieu of the junior employee. There is no evidence the Claimant was unavailable for service on this d
The Carrier next argues the Claimant should not be compensated at the overtime rate as he performed no service. The Organization responds that the Claimant should be made whole by being paid what he would have received had he worked. Both parties cited numerous Awards in support of their respective positions.

 We addressed this issue extensively in Third Division Award 26508. Relying upon Third Division Awards 21767 and 25601, we concluded that payment at the time and one-half rate was appropriate. Since then, Third Division Award 27707, involving the parties herein, hel3 r






Form 1 Award No. 28687
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-28568
 91-3-88-3-438
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest:G·y if .

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1991.