PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 and
 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees -
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim on-behalf of Class A Machine Operator L. A. Wires,
 Ohio Division, for the difference in pay between what
 he received as a Trackman and what he should have re
 ceived as a Class A Operator during his vacation period
 beginning May 29, 1972 through June 9, 1972.
 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned as a Class A Machine Operator on r
 April 17, 1972 and worked that assignment until i·tay 26,
 1972 on which date he was furloughed from that position
 at the end of his tour of duty. May 27 and 28, 1972,
 was Saturday and Sunday and on May 29, 1972 Claimant
 -began his vacation extending through Friday, June 9,
 1972. Upon notification of furlough Claimant advised
 Carrier that, up6n return from vacation, he would dis
 place a, junior Trackman. Much has been said, in the re
 cord, about whether Claimant "asserted" or "exercised"
 his rights to the lower rated position prior to taking
 his vacation. Carrier avers that Claimant exercised
 his rights and that, therefore, he was holding-an assign
 , ment as Extra Gang Laborer during the entire period of
                  o that Claimant merely asserted his displacement rights which he was obligated to do within ten (10)'days from

1 _
 PL Board No. 1210 (2) AWARD No. 8

                                            I ,


      date of furlough as provided in the Agreement, in order

      ·, to protect his seniority. Under these circumstances,

      Petitioner has argued that the Claimant was working as

      a Machine Operator for more than 20 days immediately

      prior to beginning his vacation and was, therefore, en

      titled to vacation pay at the Operator daily rate.

      There is no disuute that the Claimant was entitled to

      the two weeks of vacation involved herein.

      We are persuaded that the position of the Carrier re

      garding the status of Claimant during his vacation period,

      i.e. Extra Gang Laborer, is at variance with numerous

      prior awards of the NRAB on this point, under similar

      circumstances, to wit, as follows:


                  . AWARD 110. 19671 - Third Division, stated, in part: -


                    "We have held on many occasions that an employee, in order to acouire the rights of an occupant of a position, must commence work on such position ..... We have said in a series of consistant decisions that 'positions are not to be construed as assigned until such time as work is actually begun thereon'.


                    In Award 12315 we said, '... the words ' having a regular assignment' means more than bidding in a position and having it assigned; there must be 'actual acceptance by physically taking over the duties ....


                  We concur in the above recited principle.


                  Additionally, Awards No. 11301 and 11302 stated, in part,


            as follows:

            "Claimant was a regular assigned foreman. Immediately

            prior to taking his vacation he was displaced. The

            · Carrier contends that he automatically reverted to

            the status of a regular assigned laborer. There is

PL Board 'To. 1210 (3) AWARD 110. 8
 insufficient evidence to sustain the Carrier's
 position. Claimant is entitled to vacation pay
 ,, under 7 (e) of the Agreement."
 Based upon a thorough review of the record before us, and
 under the circumstances in this particular case, it is our
 opinion that the Agreement was violated.

 AWARD: Claim Sustained.
 ORDER: The Carrier shall comply with this Award within thirty (30)
 days of the date of this Award.

                      C. Robert Roau'S r_y, :icutrai ~ .o ..r


A. J~ fnzngnzm,~ :^z·~oyee :!ember L. W. Burks, Carrier =;ember

 Baltil.^.ore, ttaryland March 11, 1974