Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8980
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8996
 2-SCL-CM-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gilbert H. Vernon when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


Dispute: Claim of Employes:



















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 (rganization contends that Rules 15 and particularly Section 6 of the Memorandun. of Agreement dated March 28, 1968, was violated when CarrIe r transferred employees from the West Jacksonville Shops (the repair track) to the Moncrief facility (the train yard). Section 6 of the March 28, 1968, Agreement reads:
 T'orm 1 Award No. 8980
 Page 2 Docket NO. 8996
 2-SCL-CM-'82
 "6. At points where rosters are consolidated, as set forth
 in this agreement, it will not be the Carrier's intent to
 transfer employees from one shop to another to fill day-to
 day vacancies which may arise."

 The Organization filed with the Carrier during the handling of the claim on the property and as part of their submission, the following list which shows the name of the employee whose vacancy was filled and the name of the employee filling it.

The Carrier does not dispute that the above list represents a list of vacancies at the Moncrief train yard nor do they dispute that the list indicates the employees from West Jacks,:)nville who filled those vacancies. Nor is it disputed by the Carrier that employees were transferred from west Jackson,ille to fill vacancies at the Moncrief train yard. The Carrier contends that it is system-wide past practice to use on-duty employees from one location to fill vacancies at another on an as needed basis within the same seniority point. The practice, they contend, existed at West Jacksonville and Moncrief as well. Carrier contends that there is nothing in the Agreement to restrict its right to do so and such was not the intent of the March 28, 1968, Agreement. The Carrier further argues that Second Division Award 7412 cited by the Organization is distinguished from the instant case. As they content, the vacancies in question were not day to day vacancies. They further contend the vacancies were filled in accordance with the practice in effect for many years.



The Organization also contends that prior to December 29, 1977, the types of vacancies in question were filled not by transferring employees from West Jacksonville but from the overtime board at moncrief. The Claimant's in this case were first out on the overtime board at Moncrief train yard on the dates that the various vacancies were filled. In support of their ~osition, the organization directs our attention to Second Division Award 7`+12 which also dealt with Section 6 of the March ~' 3, 19(>8 Agreement. Award 7412 involves another Organization who was also signatory to the agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 8980
 Page 3 Docket No. 8996
 2-SCL-CM-182

 The central issue in this case was considered by the Board in Award 7412. We observe the following statement by the Board in that Award:





In interpreting Section 6 of the March 28, 1968 Agreement we fully agree with the statements made by the Board in Award 7412. Section 6 clearly prohibits the Carrier from transferring employees between shops at points covered by the Agreement for the purpose of filling day to day vacancies. The past practice arguments made by the Carrier cannot overcome the clear and unambiguous language of Section 6.

 The remaining questions in context of this case regarding Section 6 are: 1) What is meant to "day-to-day vacancies" and 2) has the Union satisfied its burden as petitioner to show that the vacancies in question were in fact "dayto-day vacancies" as the term is used in the Agreement?

 Regarding the question as to what is means by "day-to-day vacancies" the Board observes a long established maxim that words and phrases should be given their ordinary meaning lmless otherwise specifically indicated by the Agreement. The meaning of the phrase is clear and self evident. A day to day vacancy is one known to exist only for one day at a time. A vacation vacancy, for instance, is not a day to day vacancy. Nor is an extended illness for a specified period of time of more than one day. We note in this regard that some of the statements on past practice submitted by the Employees recognize that vacation vacancies and vacancies due to extended illness at Moncrief have, at one time or another, been filled from West Jacksonville.

 Regarding whether the Organization has met the burden of showing that the vacancies filled~at Moncrief by West Jacksonville employees were day to day vacancies, we find they have partially fulfilled their burden. The Organization contends that all the vacancies on the list were day to day vacancies. However, the Carrier has refuted specifically that the vacancies of Tomlinson and Collins were not day to day vacancies due to the fact they were off because of extended illnesses. The remainder of the list, however, strongly suggests that the other vacancies filled from West Jacksonville were "day-to-day vacancies". We find no
 Form 1 Award No. 8980
 Pages Docket No. 8996
 2-SCL-CM-'82

 effective refutation by the Carrier that the other vacancies on the list were anything but day to day vacancies. The Board finds that the Carrier properly filled the vacancies of Tomlinson and Collins. However, all the other vacancies listed in the record have been sho4m by the Organization to be day-to-day vacancies as the Carrier has not presented evidence to refute this. As a result, the Carrier violated the Agreement when the remaining vacancies were filledf by transferring employees.

 There is aVother aspect of this case that must be treated. The Organization has also made the argument that a violation of Section 6 of the agreement occurred when employees from West Jacksonville were transferred on a "day to day _basis" to Moncrief. This argument in reality is distinct from an argument that r,en were sent to fill "day to day vacancies". To say that the Carrier cannot fill "day to day vacancies" by transferring employees is much different tlan saying the Carrier cannot fill vacancies on a "day to day basis". When a vacancy is filled on a "day to day basis" it does not necessarily mean that it is a "day to day vacancy". It is our opinion that the Carrier does not vLolate Section 6 when they transfer employees on a day to day basis to fill vacancies such as extended illnesses or vacations. The Agreement does not restrict the Carrier in its method of filling the vacancies; it only restricts them in the kinds of vacancies that they can fill by transferring employees between locations within a seniority point. Or, in other words, it doesn't dictate how long an employee must be transferred when filling other than day to day vacancies. It does not state or prevent the Carrier, for instance, from transferring one employee to fill the first day of a five-day vacation vacancy and a different employee the second day, etc. What it does prevent is the Carrier from transferring employees to fill a vacancy that may arise on a day to day basis.

 In conclusion, the Carrier violated the Agreement when they filled day to day vacancies by transferring employees from West Jacksonville to Moncrief. The proper claimants in this case are those filling vacancies other than Tomlinson and Collins' vacancies and can be determined by comparing the statement of claim against the list of vacancies. Therefore, the following claimants are entitled to the following compensation -but only at the straight time rate of pay:












NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Form 1
 Page 5

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By _ Q G

Dated. a/t Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of March, 1982.

 Award No. 8980
 Docket No. 8996
 2-SCL-CM-182