"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:

1. That the Carrier violated Rule 1, of the controlling Agreement as

amended, on November 4 and November 5, 1995 through the

circumvention of the overtime call board.

2. That the Carrier be ordered to recompense Carman R.E. Dennis

the amount of eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate.

3. That the Carrier be ordered to recompense Carman R.R. Roberts

the amount of seven (7) hours and thirty (30) minutes at the time

and one-half rate."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

A Carman with Saturday and Sunday as rest days requested to fill a five day vacation absence which had rest days of Wednesday and Thursday. Because the vacation relief Carman worked Saturday and Sunday, which was his sixth and seventh consecutive days of work. the Organization filed the claim now at the Board contending that the Carrier violated paragraph (c) of Rule 1 which reads as follows:

"(c) There is hereby established for all employes covered by this agreement, subject to the exceptions contained hereafter in this rule and Rule 12, a work week of 40 hours, consisting of five days of eight hours each, with two consecutive days off in each seven; the work weeks may be staggered in accordance with the Management's operational requirements; so far as practicable the days off shall be Saturday and Sunday. The foregoing is subject to the provisions of this rule which follow . . . ."

Claimant was regularly assigned to a position of 40 hours with two consecutive rest days, i.e., Saturday and Sunday. lie requested and was assigned to work a five day vacation absence which was scheduled to work Friday through Tuesday. lie worked Monday through Thursdav on his regular assignment. Friday through Tuesdav on the vacation absence, was then off Wednesday and Thursday, the rest days of the vacations absence. worked Friday on his regular assignment and then was off Saturday and Sunday, the rest days of his regular position.

According to the Carrier. this has been the historic practice at this point in filling; vacation absences, a practice not denied by the Organization.

For the Carrier to be in violation of Rule 1 it would have to be evident that it created positions or a position which somehow, in some manner, violated the purpose and intent of Rule 1. Neither the position to which the Claimant was regularly assigned, nor the position vacant because of a vacation has been shown to have been established in violation of Rule 1. nor can it be said that by allowing the vacation relief man to work as he did, that such action violated Rule 1.

AWARD