relief. To claim, as the employes have in their statement of claim, that vacation relief employe J. Rennie was ineligible to perform vacation relief is ridiculous, especially when this is exactly what he was regularly assigned to do; and especially when there is no rule, memorandum of agreement or letter of understanding between carrier and the organization which prohibited this action.

In conclusion, carrier asserts without fear of contradiction that there was no violation of Memorandum No. 33; that vacation relief employe J. Rennie was eligible to perform vacation relief on September 15 and 16, 1956, and that this claim of the employes is entirely lacking in any type of schedule or agreement rule support.

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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant was employed as a machinist helper with regular assignment second shift Monday through Friday, Saturday and Sunday rest days. On September 15 and 16, 1956 he was home on rest days and first out for overtime.

Machinist Helper J. Rennie was the assigned vacation relief man.

The carrier assigned J. Rennie to fill a second shift vacancy on September 15 and 16, instead of calling in the claimant.

Rennie, the vacation relief man, had gone on vacation himself for the period September 3, through September 14, and failed to give written notice that he was available for overtime calls on September 15 and 16 as provided in Memorandum of Agreement No. 33, Exhibit B., and so claimant contends that he was improperly denied the right to work.

The carrier contends that an assigned vacation relief employe is not bound by Agreement No. 33.

Machinist Helper Rennie was not an individual specifically hired for the purpose of filling vacation vacancies. He was a regular employe, and so on September 15 and 16 whether he was a vacation relief employe or an employe on some other assignment, the fact is he was a vacationing employe of the carrier who took his vacation from September 3 through September 14, and to make himself eligible for work on his rest days of September 15 and 16 he must comply with Agreement No. 33-Exhibit B.

As the carrier says on Page 3 of his summarization, subdivision 7, "Memorandum No. 33 deals exclusively with the subject of the procedure a vacationing employe must follow in making himself available for overtime call work upon his return from vacation . . . ."

i

AWARD