Form L ';ATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29352
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29008
 92-3-89-3-434
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. 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 !,zreement was violated when the position of 111 Bridgeman on Bridge Gang 64110 -:as awarded to Mr. T. C. McCarty on August L, 1988 instead of recalling 868 e=ploye S. E. Swaim (System File MW-88-87-/CB/475-72-A).

 (2) As a -onsequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof, the Claimant shall De allowed three hundred thirty-six (336) hours at the all Bridgeman's rate o_ pay and continuing and he shall be awarded a corresponding
 ·11 3ridgeman's sen_)rity date."

 FINDINGS:
The Thin: 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 respec:lvely 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 -.e rein.

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

 The Claimant holds seniority as a #1 Carpenter and Tinner Foreman in Seniority District 2 (South of Texarkana). On August 1, 1988, the Carrier assigned another employee 2. The Organization contends that the Claimant should have been offered the opportunity for the position in his own seniority district. The Organization further contends :nat the other employee does not hold Bridgeman seniority in Seniority District 2.

 In defense of its assignment, the Carrier points to the Bridgeman #1 seniority roster for Seniority District 2, dated January 1, 1988, which shows the other employee with a seniority date of September 15, 1987.
 Form 1 .ward No. 29352
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29008
 92-3-89-3-434

 The organization disputes this listing and challenges the Carrier to provide written eviZence of the means by which the other employee was given such seniority. Te circumstances do not require such proof, however. In reference to senori_: rosters, Article 6, Section 2 provides that seniority dates are "permanen=iy established if not protested witihin ninety (90) days from the first poscei." In the absence of such timely challenge, the Carrier properly relied on ::e seniority roster in its assignment. The Claimant does not contend that ':e -.eld Bridgeman all seniority.

 The Organization refers to numerous other disputes concerning the Claimant's job rig-._s, but these are not relevant to the facts here under review.






Attest:
        Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, =:Linois, this 25th day of August 1992.