PARTIES TO DISPUTE:





STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the System COMMittee of the Brotherhood that:


















FINDINGS:

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:

 1. That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and

OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 Rule 3 (Selection of Positions) provides, in pertinent part:
                                              S(3h II10

                                              Ib0


      8a,.~i.:ion 3. Advertisement and away::.


      (a) All positions and vacancies will be advertised

      within thirty (30) days previous to or within twenty

      (20) days following the dates they occur. The

      advertisement shall show position title, rate of pay,

      headquarters, tour of duty, rest days and designated

      meal period.


      Section 4. Filling temporary vacancies


      (a) A position or vacancy-may be filled temporarily

      pending assignment. When new positions or vacancies

      occur, the senior qualified available employees will be

      given preference, whether working in a lower rated

      position or in the same grade or class pending

      advertisement and award. When furloughed employees are

      to be used to fill positions under this Section, the

      senior qualified furloughed employees in the seniority

      district shall be offered the opportunity to return to

      service. Such employees who return and are not awarded

      a position or assigned to another vacancy shall return

      to furlough status.


A careful review of the record indicates that the Carrier failed to bulletin the referenced Foreman/Flagman position until February 14, 2000 even though the performance of the disputed work began on January 10, 2000. By failing to act in a timely manner, the Carrier thereby violated Rule 3 of the Agreement.

 The record further proves that the Claimant held seniority within the Track Department and was working as a Track Inspector in the relevant territory and during the relevant time. The record contains sufficient evidence to prove that the Claimant had sought to perform the disputed work in a timely manner as reflected by an unrefuted letter, dated August 24, 2000, furnished by the Claimant. (Attachment 3 to Employes' Exhibit C.) Although the evidence proves that the Claimant had greater seniority than the employees who performed the disputed work, no credible evidence exists in the record that the Claimant ever bid for the bulletined position. As a result of the claimant's greater seniority, the carrier had a contractual obligation pursuant to Rule 3 to assign the disputed work to the senior Claimant rather than the junior employees who actually performed the disputed work.

 Under these precise circumstances, the Claimant shall be compensated for the overtime that occurred in the performance of the disputed work between January 10, 2000 and February 14, 2000. No basis exists in the present record for the Claimant to receive

                            2

                                                Sb~wo

                                                flbJd ~ bD


%.co:apensation after February 14, 2006 cti to receive the requested weekly per diem and/or travel allowance.

 AWARD:

 The Claim is sustained in accordance with the Opinion of the Board. The Carrier shall make the Award effective on or before 60 days following the date of this Award.

L.l

Robert L. Doq~rlas

Chairman and Neutral Member


                                        7


D. . Bartho o .T. li zak
 Emp ee Member Carrier ember

 Dated:

 3