PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
 I
 . ' and ' .',
 ' Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement by failing to use
 Class "A" Machine Operators V. R. Keister and P. C. Logan,
 who were working in the Trackman's gang on June 4, 1971,
 to operate a Weed Spray Car between Garrett, Ind. and Gary, Ind.
 2. Class "A" Operators V. R. Keister and P. C. Logan be
 now reimbursed for the difference in pay between what they
 received as trackmen on June 4, 1971 and what they should
 have received on that date if they had been used as Operators
 of this Weed Spray Car for 8 hours normal tour of duty, plus
 6 hours overtime at the 12 time rate.
 OPINION OF BOARD: Essentially, Weed Spray Car X-3579 was run out of Garrett,'
 Indiana in a work train for a one day spraying operation.
 Claimants, who were furloughed Class "A" Machine operators,
 were working on the claim date as traekmen out of Syracuse,
 Indiana, 32 miles from Garrett. In denying this claim., the
 Carrier held that Claimants had expressed no desire to operate
 the Weed Spray Car, had refused to exercise their seniority
 to Machine Operator positions that-were available to them on
 their seniority district, and were not immediately available
 to cover the assignment in question. The one day assignment


                  f

PL Board No. 1210 ~; (2) AWARD No. 4

                  petitioner, on the other hand, stated his position in a letter to the Carrier, dated August 10, 1971, reading, in


                · pertinent part, as follows:


                      "On July 13, 1977. Division Engineer Schilt declined payment of this claim stating that there was no indication that either Mr. Logan or Mr. Keister

    ·. requested this work for the one day June 4, 1971.

                "I cannot agree with Division Engineer Schilt inasmuch

                as neither of these men had any knowledge whatsoever

                that this weed sprayer would be working over the

                territory on June 4, and it was the responsibility

                of the supervisor or the company to assign Class A

                operators to this machine for this work instead of

                a Track Foreman and a Trackman."

                In its submission to this Board, the Organization expanded

                on the foregoing by alleging, additionally, that Claimants

                ' were available (the distance of 32 miles being insignificant

                in the light of today's high-speed highways), that Claimants

                were senior to the employees assigned, and that Carrier had

                the obligation to offer the assignment to Claimants before

                filling it with other employees.

                Although Carrier asserted, in his submission, that no specific'

                Rule had been cited by the Organization in support of the

                claim it is apparent to us, based upon the record and the

                hearing in this case, that there was no confusion during

                the handling on the property that the Organization was basing

                its position on an alleged violation of the Seniority Rule

                of the Agreement. This Rule is Rule 53, Seniority-Work

                Equipment Operators. The Carrier, as a matter of fact,

                cited Rule 53 (d-1) of the Agreement in support of its

                o declination of the claim, and it was this final declination

                that brought this dispute before this Board.

PL Board No..1210

 Rule 53 (d-1) states as follows:

 AWARD No.,

 - "Where vacancies of an unforeseen nature occur
 - in positions of Work Equipment Operator and where
 there is no Work Equipment Operator immediately
 available to cover such vacancies, the senior
 employee who can operate the machine may be
 assigned to cover such vacancy for a period of
 two days or less."
 This Rule,is actually an exception to the basic requirement
 of filling vacancies by the posting of appropriate bulletins;

 whereby vacancies of short duratio can be filled by other than a Work

 specified circumstances, withou Those circumstances are (1) tha unforeseen nature" and (2) that

 is immediately available to fill
We are persuaded, based upon th herein were not "unforeseen".

 in position to be used, on a

 conditioned only upon suitable of an operator., Carrier states

 operations are subject to the therefore are not susceptible (emphasis added)

 It is logical to assume, due to the nature of the operation, that the actual spraying day is not spontaneously decided upon and the phrase "much in advance" infers that -some advance planning is necessary. insofar as Claimants availability is concerned, the record shows that the machine in question was operated over their territory and, in fact, through their location where they were

 n

 t t

 e

 - two (2) days or less -

 Equipment Operator, under bulletin, the vacancy be "of an no Work Equipment Operator such vacancy. record, that the vacancies

 The Weed Sprayer was obviously stand-by basis, its~operation

 weather and the availability

 1 that, ". . . weed spraying

 vagaries of the weather and to be planned much in advance."
 PL Hoard No. 1210 ~: (4) '. AWARD No.' 4
 ' working on the claim date as Trackman.
 · In summarizing its position, the Carrier stated:
 "7husj Carrier acted within the specific
 authority granted to it by Rule 53 (d-1)
 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
 in this case."
 ·. Having made such assertion., the burden of proof rests
 with the Carrier to establish the validity of such
 assertion.
 Based upon a thorough review of the record it is our
 determination, for the reasons expressed herein, that the
 · Carrier has not met the burden of proof with probative
 evidence sufficient to sustain its position.
 AWARD: That Claimants be paid the difference in earnings between
 what they actually earned on the claim date and what they
 would have earned had they been used as operators on the
 Weed Spray Car on claim date, exclusive of travel time.
 ORDER: The Carrier shall comply with the Award within thirty (30)
 days from the date of this Award.
 C. Robert Roadley, Ventral Mamber

 A . unn ngham, --Fs((,a'oyee Member L. W. Burks, Carrier Member

 Baltimore, Maryland .'
 March 11., 1974