show definitely that the Board intended to permit the Carriers to stagger workweeks. In contrast with the obligations of the Carriers to sustain the burden of proof in the matter of non-consecutive rest days, it is for the employees here to show that some particular operational requirements of the Carrier are not better met by having the work weeks staggered.

It should be pointed out that in general the Board's intent will be satisfied if employees on positions which have been filled 7 days per week are given any 2 consecutive days off, with the presumption in favor of Saturday and Sunday"".

"THE BOARD EXPRESSLY DENIED THE ORGANIZATIONS' REQUESTS FOR A UNIFORM WORKWEEK OF MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND FOR PUNITIVE PAY FOR SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AS SUCH. IT HAD IN MIND THE CONTINUOUS NATURE OF SOME OF THE OPERATIONS ON RAILROADS.""

It is crystal clear that the assignments to protect service on Saturdays and Sundays as in effect at Barstow and elsewhere are strictly in keeping with the principles enunciated by the Emergency Board. While the employes have repudiated the letter-understanding of October 6, 1950, reproduced in full in this submission, that letter-understanding related to assignments of Tuesday through Saturday and had no application whatsoever to the staggering of car repair forces to protect 7-days service which was fully explained in the carrier's submission in the case covering an identical claim from Wellington. What was said in that case applies with equal force and effect to this case.

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 Ralway 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

After the 40-Hour Week Agreement became effective on September 1, 1949, car repairers H. Finney, A. M. Barela, J. L. Poncho, P. M. Gastelum, J. C. Martinez and N. W. Whitehurst, claimants in this case, were assigned to Wednesday-Sunday work weeks, with rest days of Monday and Tuesday, on the carrier's "running" car repair tracks at Barstow, California. Before the above-mentioned date these employes had been assigned to MondaySaturday work weeks.

As in the case decided by Award No. 1599, the organization has the burden of establishing that the carrier's action was and is in violation of the letter of agreement of October 6, 1950, or of the provisions of the 40-Hour Week Agreement, signed by the parties.

For the reasons set forth in our Award No. 1599, we do not find that the organization has sustained this burden. We think the organization has failed to show that (1) the letter of agreement is controlling in respect to "running" car repairs of the sort involved in the instant case; (2) there is and has been, since September 1, 1949, no need for the assignment of the protested work weeks; and (3) such assignments are and have been in violation of the meaning and intent of the 40-hour week rules.

AWARD