1946. This claim is progressed entirely on the basis of Rule No. 6 of agreement August, 1942, between the Erie Railroad company and the employes of the mechanical department represented by Erie System Federation No. 100, which rule for ready reference reads:

"Employes changed from one shift to another by the Railroad will be paid overtime rates for the first shift of each change; this does not apply to employes changing shifts by exercising seniority for any positions or vacancies. Employes working two days or more on a new shift shall be considered transferred to that shift."

Claimant Henry was retained and was to work as a relief boilermaker for the purpose of relieving second and third trick boilermakers under the New York State .Law and for vacation relief, and did not work only one assigned trick. The work which he performed on the dates in question, namely August 3, 5, 17 and 19, 1946, was work programmed for him and he was not required to change any assigned shifts by the railroad as contemplated by Rule 6. He would change shifts only as per program in the exercise of his assignment as a relief boilermaker.

We feel that this claim is without merit and should be declined for the following reasons:

1. When force reduction was accomplished at Port Jervis Roundhouse subsequent to May 11, 1946, the claimant Henry was only retained on the basis of a relief boilermaker.

2. His program called for relieving second trick and third trick boilermakers under the New York State Law and he was to work vacations in place of vacationers.

3. Rule No. 6 is not applicable in this situation because Boilermaker Henry was regularly programmed to cover the work of relieving boilermakers otherwise he would have been furloughed from the service and recalled only as necessary to work under Rule 20 (d).

4. This arrangement enabled the general foreman to retain one additional mar, in his shop after May, 1946.

5. It would be decidely unfair to now penalize the carrier because of the roundhouse foreman arranging to keep a boilermaker working, rather than using him only as an extra man when needed.

6. There is no rule in agreement of August, 1942 to prohibit the assignment without penalty of a relief boilermaker on various shifts.

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 parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Two questions are raised by the instant case:

1-Whether Rule 6 of the controlling agreement applies to a work assignment which may require the employe to work as a relief man on different shifts during the work week, and

2-Whether the man who is placed on such job, without bidding therefor, is exercising his seniority within the meaning of Rule 6.

Henry did not bid on the relief boilermaker's job bulletined on May 17, 1946, but was assigned to it by the general foreman. On this state of facts it cannot be said that he exercised his seniority to gain that job. The exercise of seniority implies the use of the seniority principle to gain a preference in some aspect of the employment relationship. In this particular case it was not Henry's superior seniority status, but his lack of seniority that caused him to be assigned to the relief job. The carrier's acknowledgment of Henry's seniority, in placing him on that job, is not the equivalent of Henry's exercising seniority to fill the job. The absence] of a job bid by Henry is one of the features differentiating this case from Award 1234.

The only issue before this Board is whether Henry's work assignments on August 3, 5, 17, and 19, 1946, constituted a change of shift entitling him to overtime rates. It is immaterial whether identical assignments were performed by Henry during May, June, and July without claim for additional compensation. Inasmuch as the bulletin of May 17, 1946, merely referred to a relief job for work on the first trick, and also for relieving the second and third trick when required, without specifying the extent of such relief work, Henry continued to hold a regular assignment on the first trick. Accordingly, his shift was changed by the carrier's action on the dates involved in this case, and he should be compensated at premium rates.

AWARD