Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28746
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28256
 91-3-88-3-22
 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: (Soo Line Railroad Company (formerly Chicago, Milwaukee, ( St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company)

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned junior Laborer M. G. Farley instead of Laborer B. M. Olson to fill the fuel truck operator position on Material/Crossing Gang A from July 21 through September 30, 1986 (System Files C #13-86, C #14-86, C #17-86 and C #19-86).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Mr. B. M. Olson shall be allowed one hundred seventy-eight (178) hours of pay at the fuel truck operator's time and one-half overtime 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.

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

 This Claim arose when Carrier assigned a junior employee to the temporary position of Fuel Truck
On July 9, 1986, Carrier asked the members of two Material/Crossing Gangs, working between Rosemount and Comus, Minnesota, if any were interested in the truck position. Claimant was the senior employee that expressed interest. Rule 8(c) of the ef

Form 1 Award No. 28746
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28256
 91-3-88-3-22
 Claimant was scheduled to be on vacation the following week, July
 14-18, 1986. Other provisions of the Agreement prevented the Carrier from
 deferring the scheduled vacation. The record is conflicting whether Claimant
 was offered the position on the condition that he voluntarily defer his vaca
 tion. Claimant says the vacation topic never was mentioned. Carrier contends
 that Claimant withdrew his interest in the position when he was told he would
 have to reschedule his vacation to be considered available for the job. Claim
 ant did take his vacation as scheduled. Upon his return from vacation, Claim
 ant learned a junior employee had been assigned and was established in the
 position. On this and several subsequent occasions, Claimant renewed his re
 quest to be assigned the job. The job lasted until September 30, 1986, some
 seventy-five calendar days- The junior employee also possessed an Iowa Chauf
 feur's License which, according to the record, was the substantial equivalent
 of a Minnesota Class B truck operator's license. Claimant had no similar
 license.

 The Claim, in essence, alleges two violations. First, Carrier failed to properly assign the initial temporary position. Second, when the position continued beyond thirty days, it should have been bulletined and awarded to Claimant.

 After careful review of the record, the Board finds, essentially, in favor of the Carrier on both alleged violations. Rule 8(c) clearly provides for an informal assignment process for temporary vacancies subject to due consideration of seniority the temporary position. The licenser issue was also a relevant consideration.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:

        Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


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