Positions are not bulletined to perform only specific items of work, unless it might be some specialized or preferred position, such as engine inspector whenever, under the agreement, it is necessary to have an inspector assigned regularly.

Mr. Graves was assigned by bulletin to and was working on a seven-day assignment to perform work covered by the machinists' classification of work: rule and on the Sunday in question, January 17, 1943, he performed millwright work on the saw in the mill.

The work performed by Machinist Graves on Sunday, January 17, 1943, in connection with repairs to this saw, was work as contemplated in Rule 4 of the agreement of September 15, 1941, for which pro-rata rate is provided when performed by employes who are regularly assigned by bulletin to perform work on Sundays and holidays. It was "millwright" work as covered by the rule and, in addition, such work on Sunday, January 17, 1943, when the mill was not working, was necessary for the continuous operation of the railroad, for to have delayed performing this emergency work until Monday, January 18, 1943, would have caused the mill to be shut down on that day, when it was needed, awaiting finish of repairs to the saw. As it was, the mill was able to start operating on Monday, January 18, without interruption.

The reason Rule 4 provides for pro-rata rate on Sundays for millwright work is that is a day on which such work can be performed with the least interruption to essential work necessary to the continuous operation of the railroad.

The employe, Mr. Graves, who performed this millwright work was and is regularly assigned by bulletin to work on Sundays and holidays as per Rule 4. The work performed on the saw also was in the nature of "running repairs" and was emergency work, necessary to the continuous operation of the railroad. The saw unquestionably was needed Monday morning, January 18. Mr. Graves being so assigned and performing this "millwright" work on Sunday, January 17, was, therefore, properly paid at pro-rata rate as per Rule 4.

As a qualified machinist, Mr. Graves, of course, is not confined to any particular item of machinist work, but is obliged to perform work as specified in machinists' classification of work Rule 53, and when any of that work is work as specified in Rule 4, such as millwright work, and is performed Sunday by an employe who is "regularly assigned by bulletin to work on Sundays and holidays" pro-rata rate of pay is proper under that rule.

Rule 4 does not provide that in order for pro-rata rate to aapply an employe must be assigned solely to millwright work, or solely to running repairs, but merely "tvho are assigned by bulletin to work on Sundays and holidays."

As Machinist Graves was properly assigned and paid under Rule 4 of the agmeement of September 15, 1941, there was no violation of the agreement and claim should be denied.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The evidence of record supports the following conclusions: that the claimant was not assigned, within the meaning of Rule 4 of the controlling agree-

AWARD