(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to assign Mr. D. R. Fuhrman to fill the temporary vacancy in the foreman's classification, pending bulletin assignment, at Dixon beginning March 14 through 24,1993, instead of assigning said position in compliance with the provisions of Rule A-3 of the Craft Specific Provisions (System File MR-L109)
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant D. R. Fuhrman shall:
`...receive the difference in pay between the Foreman rate of $13.81 per hour and the Laborer rate of $10.72 per hour, a total of $3.09 per hour, for all straight time worked from march 14, 1994 through March 24, 1994, pay, at the Foreman overtime rate for all overtime worked by the fill in Foreman in the same period. We also request that the Claimant receive Mileage for each regular assigned day worked that the Carrier was in violation, for a daily total of 120 miles (the total round trip difference in mileage between the Claimants requested position and the location he required to protect). In addition to the mileage reimbursement, the Carrier shall reimbursethe Claimant for travel time at the Foreman pay at the rate of 40 miles per hour."' Form 1 Page 2
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
Claimant, holding seniority as a laborer, placed a request pursuant to Rule A-3B to be placed into a foreman position. Subsequently, a foreman position became vacant and, instead of placing Claimant into the position, Carrier instead chose another employee pursuant to bulletin designating the position as a permanent position.
The instant matter places two rule provisions, Rule A-2(A)(3) and Rule A-3B, into play with respect to the manner in which the position in question was filled. Fortunately, the interplay of these two Rules has been interpreted by the Third Division in another matter. There, in Award 32713 which resolved a dispute between these same two parties, the Board held that because the two Rules created an ambiguity it was proper to look to the Carrier's past practice in the same circumstances. In so doing the conclusion was reached that the manner in which the Carrier filled the position in question was consistent with its past practice. Because the Carrier used that same process in the instant dispute, the same conclusion must be reached in this matter as well.