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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Where a carman is pressed into emergency service as a cook for a Maintenance of Way crew called out as a result of a flood during a period starting July 11, 1958 and continuing to and including a portion of July 18, 1958, and during such time was not relieved from duty (although he undoubtedly had rest periods) is he entitled to the full compensation which a carman whose service had not been interrupted would have received?

Carrier's position is that the rules of the basic agreement are inapplicable to these facts because it is not work specified in it and furthermore was not performed in the Maintenance of Equipment Department. The scope note to the agreement is relied on as restricting it's application to work performed in the Maintenance of Equipment Department.

1. It is conceded that if claimant is entitled to be treated as a carman, i.e. if Rules 7 and 11 of the agreement apply, the claim would be valid. Rule 11 declares that if required to fill temporarily the place of another employe receiving a lower rate, his rate will not be changed." Therefore if he had been called on to perform lower rate maintenance of equipment work his claim would be clearly valid. The record reveals that a portion at least of the work here performed was maintenance of equipment work. Temporary repairs to cars and other equipment had to be made and carmen were on duty at least from July 14. These men took their meals at the commissary car. In view of this circumstance we would be deciding the case on a fine and technical distinction were we to turn it on this ground. We hold therefore that claimant had not been assigned to the maintenance of way department so as to render the agreement inapplicable.

2. The remaining point posed by Carrier is that the work of a cook, not being classified, was for that reason not covered by the contract. This issue must be decided with reference to Rule 11. The manifest purpose of that rule is to prevent arbitrary reclassification of an employe by assigning him to work which pays less than that of his assigned job. It is possible that the rule when written contemplated performance of lower grade classified work only, but it does not say so. Consistent with the mentioned philosophy of this rule we hold that it includes non-classified work as well. An exaggerated example shows why it should be construed in this manner. If a man while working as a carman were to be temporarily assigned to other duties it could not be contended that his status changed while, for example, he was going on an errand. Similarly the temporary assignment as a cook can not operate to deprive him of his right.

3. The remaining point that claimant had rest periods is not tenable. No such rest periods of 5 hours or more were set apart.

4. Claimant's demand for pay for the completion of time cards must be rejected because the record is conflicting as to whether this time was attributable to the Carrier's demands or was a result of the efforts of organization-to obtain completion of the cards in a manner which would accord with their interpretation of the rules. Thus it cannot be determined whether he was then serving his own interests or the interests of the Carrier.

AWARD