PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 _TO
 DISPUTE: and
 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 STATEMENT - 1. Carrier violated the Agreement of October 1,
 _OF
 CLAIM: 1968 when it furloughed Claimant K.E.Hiley and
 permitted Foreman J. 0. Hilkey to perforiu
 mechanic's work.
 2. Claim for March 1, 1977 at the mechanic's
 rate and for each and everv Jay Foreman J. 0.
 Hilkey performs mechanic's work is a valid
 claim.
 FINDINGS: Claimant and other Force 1548 employes were fur
 loughed on February 11, 1977. Several weeks
 later on March 1, Foreman Hilkey and Mr. Nazelrod
 were returned to duty at the same work site.
 Claimant, junior to them in s=ntoritv, remained
 a(030 -I . .

 on furlough until the following month, April '+.

 In support of the claim that th(e foreman should nut have been used to perform mechanic's work while claLnan__-was on furlough, Petitioner emphasizes Rule 1(a)'s definition of_a foreman as "an employe directing work and reporting to a supervisory official of the railroad." However, no rule or evidence to which we have been referred indicates that a foreman is barred from handling mechanic's work in addition to his responsibilities to direct work and prepare reports and time sheets. There is indeed uncontroverted evidence in the record that the practice has been to the contrary on this property.

 AWARD:

 · ,.~ c ri u-a.. _..~ _
 Carrier' embe -/~-r

 Claim denied.

 Adopted at Baltimore, Maryla-id, 4^e44~x ``) 1180.

 Ieston, Chairman

 Employe Member

 .2- G3o-Aw0, i.