Despite the reference to Rule 14 in the Statement of Claim, the focus of this dispute is a past practice that supplements the operation of Rule 14. The Organization asserted the existence of the practice in its letter dated June 7,1997 during the handling on the property. The three page letter provided a detailed description of the mechanics of the asserted long-standing practice. In addition, the attached example call list showed that, indeed, the Carrier had placed the Claimant's name on the call list with a December 31, 1995 date as called for by the practice. There is no other explanation for how else the Claimant's name would have appeared on the Carrier's list with such a date but for the existence of the asserted practice. In accordance with the practice, the Claimant should have been offered the temporary assignment ahead of the other employee whose name was not on the call list. Oddly enough, it appears that once the Organization's view of the original assignment became known to the Carrier, the Claimant was assigned to fill the remaining temporary Assistant Foreman vacancy after November 10, 1996.
The Carrier did not respond to the detailed assertions of material fact contained in the Organization's June 7, 1997 letter. At no time did the Carrier dispute the existence of the asserted practice. Moreover, the Carrier did not object to the Organization's shift in the nature of the claim from being a violation of Rule 14 to a violation of the practice that supplements Rule 14. Therefore, we have no choice but to accept the Organization's unrefuted assertions as established material facts. It is well settled that such practices are as much a part of a Labor Agreement as the terms expressed in writing therein.
This Board, after consideration ofthe dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.