PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 VS.
 Burlington Northern Railroad Company
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it called and used furloughed Sectionman B. McNew to perform snow removal work on December 27,28,29,30 and 31, 1982, instead of calling and using furloughed Sectionman J. Gilford, who was senior, available and willing to perform that service.
Claimant J. Gilford shall be allowed forty (40) hours of pay
 at the sectionman's straight time rate, twenty (20) hours of
 pay at the sectionman's time and one-half rate and three and
 one-half (3~) hours of pay at the sectionman's double time
 rate in effect on the claim dates."
 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant J. Gilford was a Section Laborer
 in the Track and Sub-department of Carrier's Denver, Colorado
 facility. Claimant held seniority as of May 17, 1978.
 This claim arose out of similar facts as those set forthwith PLB No. 4104, Case Nos. 16 and 17. We will not repeat them here. Suffice it to say that on December 23 and 24, 1982, the Denver area was blanketed with a blizzard. On December 27 to the 29, Mr. B. McNew, with seniority as of June 6, 1978, performed 40 hours of snow removal work for Carrier.
 On January 26, 1983, the Organization filed the instant claim alleging that Carrier had improperly called in a junior employee to perform snow removal work rather than Claimant, in

                                      · y cnr c-

                                9ioLl-'-)-0

                                Case No. 20


violation of Rules 2 and 29. Carrier timely denied this claim. Thereafter, it was handled in the usual manner, on the property. It is now before this Board for adjudication.
 The arguments of the parties echo those set forth in the aforementioned cases (PLB No. 4104, Case Nos. 16 and 17). In this claim, however, Carrier asserted that Claimant had been called to perform the work at 10:57 a.m. on December 27. The organization disputed this contention. It provided affidavits of Claimant and his girlfriend to the effect that the phone was in working order, but that they had received no calls from Carrier.-
 After carefully considering the record evidence, this Board concludes that Claimant is entitled to compensation in the amount of $75. This sum is reasonable and warranted under the facts of this case. It is so awarded. Thus, the claim is sustained to this extent.

                                  ~ r o ~ a ~

Case No. 20 FINDINGS: The Public Law Board No. 4104 upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds:
 That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;
 That the Public Law Board No. 4104 has the jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
 That the Agreement was violated in part. AWARD:

      Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.


P. S. Swanson, Employee Member .J. allinen, Carrier Member

            G~


            Mart' F. cheinman, Neutral Member