Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28815
 THIRD DIVISION Docket Nd. MW-28402
 91-3-88-3-180
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein 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 failed to permit Section Laborer M. M. Gottachall to displace junior Section Laborer G. Jorgenson on Crew 346 at Warren, Minnesota beginning April 1, 1987 (System File 8412 $1481G/800-46-B-276).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Claimant M. M. Gottschall shall be reimbursed for all straight time and overtime lost beginning April 1, 1987 and continuing until April 23, 1987 and he shall have all vacation, fringe benefits and other rights restored."

 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.

Claimant holds seniority as a sectionman on Sub-district 4-B. On the date this dispute arose, he was a "free agent," i.e. he had been laid off because of a force reduction approximately four months earlier and he was unable to place himself because no junior employees were working on Subdistrict 4-B. A. a res according to the Organization.

 It is further alleged by the Organization that Claimant regularly sent electronic mail messages (ELMA's) to the Roadmaster on Sub-district 4-B. Attached to the Organization's Submission before the Board are two (2) ELMA's from the Claimant dated February 27 and March 16, 1987, stating that he was available for work.
 Form 1 Award No. 28815
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28402
 91-3-88-3-180

 On April 20, 1987, Claimant was advised that a junior employee had been recalled to Crew 348 at Fordville. Claimant displaced that employee on April 23, 1987. At that time, the Organization alleges, Claimant learned that another junior employee, had been recalled and had been working since April 1, 1987 on Crew 346 at Warren, Minnesota.

 It is the Organization's position that Claimant was available, willing and qualified to perform displace the junior sectionman beginning April 1, 1987. Claimant exerted a reasonable effort to maintain his "free agent" status, the employees maintain, and Carrier's failure to notify the Claimant of the junior employee at Warren restricted Claimant's right to freely exercise his seniority under the schedule rules.

 Carrier contends that the junior man who worked, has his home section seniority in Crew 346 at Warren, and for that reason, he was called back when forces were increased. However,, Carrier submits that the EL14A is not a proper form of notification when requesting work opportunities due to the fact that many locations cannot receive ELMA messages. During the handling of the dispute on the property, Carrier specifically maintained that there was no ELMA facility at Devils Lake and that any such messages had to be forwarded by Company mail. In addition, Carrier asserted that a "determination as to whether Mr. Schmitgall and Mr. Blonigen had received copies of the EI14A messages could not be made" and that "a review of the record did not reveal that the roadmasters had ever received those messages."

 After careful consideration of the record in its entirety, it is our finding that the instant claim is meritorious and must be sustained. At the outset, we find unpersuasive Carrier's contention that its decision to recall and assign the junior sectionman to Crew 346 at Warren, Minnesota was proper because Crew 346 was his "home" section. A review of the applicable Rules clearly shows that Carrier must permit "free agents," such as the Claimant, to exercise their seniority on their respective sub-districts under the circumstances present here. Sub-district seniority contractually prevails over gang seniority, as set forth in Rule 8(1), which states as follows:




Form 1 Award No. 28815
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28402
 91-3-88-3-180
 A sectionman laid off by force reduction and
 exercising his seniority to displace a junior
 employee,, who is again laid off by a further
 reduction, or an employee who is unable to place
 himself because no junior men are working on the
 sub-district, will be considered a free agent. In
 order to be eligible to acquire a free agent s
 status, an employee must have been continuously
 employed for a period of 30 calendar days prior to
 force reduction. Time lost in exercising displace
 ment rights or absences of up to 2 days for sickness
 or other unavoidable causes, would not be considered
 as breaking the continuity of the 30 calendar days.
 A free agent who fails to exercise his right to dis
 place a junior employee within 10 days of his first
 opportunity to do so will forfeit his free agent's
 status and will be considered furloughed. He will
 continue to retain his free agent's status until he
 has returned to his home section and has been con
 tinuously employed thereon for 30 calendar days or
 more.
 A free agent may exercise his seniority to place
 himself when forces are increased on the sub-dis
 trict, whether on his home section or not, and may
 continue to displace junior employees on other
 sections as forces are further increased permitting
 him to work closer to his home section so long as he
 exercises such right within 10 days of a particular
 force increase. It is understood that free agents
 and furloughed employees must return to their home
 sections when called." (emphasis added)
employees throughout the sub-district. He made an effort in this direction by
 sending ELMA's to the three Roadmasters within the sub-district, advising them
 of his availability for work. Although Carrier claims that its system is not
 set up so as to receive ELMA's at every location, the fact remains that ELMA
 messages can be received at Thief River Falls, Minnesota, the location where
 the junior aectionman at Warren was recalled. Moreover, Carrier never offered
 any probative evidence to refute the fact that ELMA messages were sent. Car
 rier generally denied that the appropriate Supervisor received any messages,
 but never substantiated that assertion. Given that state of the record, we
 must conclude that the Organization's concrete proof must prevail over the
 Carrier's bald assertions. The records of the ELMA messages are much like
 telegrams in the sense that written copies of the messages are kept. For
 Carrier to deny receipt of the messages in the face of this documentary
 evidence, much more convincing proof was necessary.
 Form 1 Award No. 28815
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-28402
 91-3-88-3-180

 With respect to the monetary aspect of this claim, it must be remembered that we can consider only t which can properly be considered, therefore, are those dated April 3 and April 17, 1987, since those were submitted by the Organization in its correspondence with Carrier prior to this appeal. Claimant shall be ordered reimbursed from April 3, 1987 until April 23, 1987 in accordance with the Organization's requested remedy in its Sta time rolls for this period will be made available to determine how much overtime pay, if any, should be included. Finally, since Carrier did not raise any questions as to the remedy prior to its submission before this Board, any new arguments on that subject are deemed waived.-

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r -.Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1991.