"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to assign Mr. J.A. Olson to a Group 3 Machine Operator vacancy on Crew SC-174 beginning September 2, 1997 and continuing (System File T-D-1446-H/MWB 98-02-04AA BNR).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant J. A. Olson shall now be compensated for '*** the difference in rates of pay between that of truck driver and Group 3 machine operator for all hours beginning September 2, and continuing until Claimant is placed upon the position. We are requesting that Claimant receive pay equal to any and all overtime worked by the surface crew during claimed period. We request that Claimant receive meal and lodging per diem allowances of $42.50 for each and every calendar day beginning September 2, and continuing until Claimant is placed upon the position."'

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.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

G. Ferrell was assigned to a Group 3 Ballast Regulator position on District 17 surface crew SC-174. He bid off that position on September 2, 1997, creating the vacancy at issue until the position could be filled by bulletin.

The Organization riled claim, contending that the Group 3 Ballast Regulator position should have been filled by the Claimant, in accordance with Rule 19A, which states:

"A new position or vacancy of thirty (30) calendar days or less duration shall be considered temporary and may be filled without bulletining. If such vacancy or position of foreman or assistant foreman in the Track or B&B Subdepartment is to be filled, the `eligible list' referred to in Rule 18 will be used. If such vacancy is on any other position and is filled, preference will be given to the senior qualified employee who is not assigned in the rank in which the vacancy occurs and who has on file a written request to fill such vacancy. . . : '

The Carrier denied the claim, contending that the Claimant did not have a written request on file to work the position. In support thereof, the Carrier submitted a memo dated March 24,1998 from Manpower Associate R. Scott, which states: "I have reviewed the records that we have on file, and J. A. Olson did not have a 19A request on file requesting any group 3/4 machine vacancy on District 17 for Surfacing Crew 174 on September 2, 1997. . . :'

According to the Organization, however, the Carrier's position conflicts with an earlier statement made in a claim involving the Claimant in a nearly identical dispute involving temporary Group 3 positions on the same surfacing crew in May 1997. In that earlier matter, the Carrier stated in an October 9,1997 letter to the Organization:

"Reference is made to your letter dated August 14,1997, 11 of 14 letters, filing a claim on behalf of J.A. Olson . . . for alleged violation when Rule 19A request was not honored to fill a Group 3 Machine Operator position beginning June 30, 1997.

In reference to the Rule 19A you state Mr. Olson had on file with the Manpower Office. Our investigation reveals that there is a Rule 19A on file in the Manpower Office dated 5/16/97, but was not received in the Manpower Office by fax until August 22, 1997, at 11:01 . . . . Since Mr. Olson did not have request on file until August 22, 1997, he would not have been eligible to fill the vacancy. . . :'

The Carrier's Submission contends for the first time that a 19A request must be specific to the job the applicant wishes to temporarily fill. According to the Carrier, 19A requests require that the employee state the position by both job title and position number to prevent confusion and assure proper assignment when a gang has multiple positions with the same title. Those arguments would have been given due consideration had they been raised on the property. At this juncture, however, the de novo arguments are not properly before the Board.

So stating, we find that the claim has merit. The Carrier characterized this case as an irreconcilable conflict of fact, but the only conflict lies in the contradictory positions taken by the Carrier with respect to the Claimant's 19A request. The Claimant is to be made whole for monetary losses incurred. However, there is no evidence that he occupied a position which required him to incur out of pocket expenses for meals and lodging. That portion of the claim is denied.

AWARD