f -., Form I NATIONAL nAILP,G~iD ADJUSTMENT GUaP,D Award too. 6721


          The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

          addition Referee David Da111iCk when award was rendered.


                      ( System Federation No. 356, Railway Employes'

                          Department, A. F. of L. 1. 0.

      Parties to Disnnte: ( (Electrical Workers)

      (

      ( The Long Island Pail Road Cempny


      Dispute:-- Clain of Employes-


              1. That the following enployee, R. Beynon, Electrician, was depr;~vod of the double time rate of pay worked on Sunday, hay 7, 1972 -five (S) hours - when he was called to k;ort: on tie transfarar,;:r at S.S. GO1.


              2. That the above mentioned e;rcYloyee be co;pLetsated at tire c)eutae: time rate of pay instead of the time and one-half rate he received for work performed on that day.


      Fincii.n-,4s:


      The Second Divisionrof 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 eaploye 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 waived right of appearance at hearing there


      Employes allege that prior to January 15, 1971, no electrical workers were regularly assigned to Sunday work at Dunton Shops. Claim-ant was assigned to work on Sunday, May 7, 1972 for which he was paid at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate. Ire claims that he should have been paid double time instead under Article VII of the Agreement.


      Carrier contends that this was casual work not intended to be covered in Article VII and added the following:


              "if the Agreement were to be interpreted as you contend,. this man still would not be entitled to double ti.r,:e. The number of E.T. employees working on Sunday, fey 7, 1972, was not greater than the nuum.bar of E.T. employees worI;inh on Sunday, January 17, 1971, which war, the qualifying Sunday for this rule. Therefore, no E.'P. erriployes would be entitled to double tire for viorl: performed on Sunday, May 7, 1872."

Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 6721
 Docket No. 8573
 2-LI-EtJ-' 74

 This is one of a large number of similar claims filed by the Employes against this Carrier. Numbzrous Awards have been rendered an this subject. In Award No. 6662, with this Referee, the Board held that: following the Award in Public Law Board No. 790 and others by this Division, casual workers were covered urAer Article VII. In that respect Carrier's position is erroneous.

 We also held in Award No. 6662 that the number of electricians regularly assigned to work on Sundae, January 15, 1971 were 59. That number remains at 59 "as long as Article VII in its present form continues to be an accepted rule; that nun.ibor is never exhausted for all time; it is exhausted only on those Sundays when 59 are assigned to work."

 Since 59 electricians were not assigned to work on Sunday, Flay 7, 1972, Article VII has not been violated. 'Mere is no merit to the claim.

 A IJ J`s R D
Claim denied.

                        NATIONAL RAILi=;Q1D HDJIiS'xiiLN'F' B'XiRD

                        By Order of S;:oonu Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Rosemarie Brasch

 Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June, 1974.