Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28745
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28253
 91-3-88-3-29
 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 revoked the 'free agent' status of Sectionman R. M. Pettit and refused to allow Mr. Pettit to displace junior employee J. Quilling at Shoreham on June 2, 1986 (System File 8286 #1662P/800-46-B-265).

 (2) The claim* as presented by General Chairman G. Western on July 25, 1986 to Regional Engineer T. M. Parsons shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Regional Engineer Parsons in accordance with Rule 13-1 (a).
(3) As a consequence of Parts (1) and/or (2) above, Sectionman R. M. Pettit shall:



FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: ,
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.
Form 1 Award No. 28745
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28253
 91-3-88-3-29

 Claimant was furloughed to free agent status in early 1986. Thereafter, he made twice-weekly inq employees. The Glenwood Section Roadmaster took a leave of absence from May 5 - 24, 1986, and the Carrier did not replace the Roadmaster during the leave. As a result, Claimant was unable to obtain displacement information from his usual source. A junior Sectionman worked more than 10 days on the Glenwood Section during the Roadmaster's leave. On May 29, Claimant learned of a different junior employee wo this employee effective June 2, but was refused. He was informed he had forfeited his free agent sta employee working, albeit without his knowledge, on the Glenwood Section for more than 10 days. The Organization and Claimant made claim in writing for the lost work by letter dated July 25, 1986, to Carrier's Regional Engineer. The Regional Engineer did not respond. The Organization then wrote on November 5, 1986, to the next higher level of Carrier authority to request a default allowance of the Claim under Rule 13-1(a) of the effective Agreement. This Rule provides in pertinent part as follows:

The Carrier issued its first written denial of the Claim by letter dated January 2, 1987. This letter raised several procedural defenses to the default provisions of Rule 13-1(a). Among these defenses is the contention that the Claim was invalid ab initio due to lack of specificity and, therefore, the Carrier's
We have considered the procedural defenses raised by the Carrier and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Claimant and Organization are entitled to a non-precedent setting allowance of the Claim under Rule 13-1(a). The remaining issue is to determine the remedy.

 Claimant shall be made whole for ,all losses suffered as a result of being prevented from displacing the junior-employee at Shoreman, limited to the time he could have held the specific vacancy in question. This determin-
 ation will be made jointly by the Parties. __.
 Form 1 Award No. 28745
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28253
 91-3-88-3-29




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. a -Executive Secretary


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