"The Chairman: What would the furloughed or extra employes receiver

"Mr. Davis: That is done all over the country."

It will be seen from these quotations from the record of the Arbitration proceedings that the representatives of the Brotherhood explained at length that the rule contemplated that relief should be furnished, under the circumstances existing in this instant case, in exactly the manner that this respondent has followed.

CONCLUSION: It is perfectly clear that the rule has the effect of differentiating between two classes of positions worked seven days per week:

(a) Those deemed necessary to continuous operation of the carrier, and,

(b) Those not falling in that category, or not deemed necessary to continuous operation of the carrier.

As to positions falling in category (a), it is plainly the intent of the rule that the carrier shall be afforded the opportunity of securing seven days' work on such positions without the payment of a punitive rate on any day, if it relieves the regular incumbent one day in seven.

By decisions of the two tribunals cited, an extra or furloughed employe, not being regularly assigned to a position necessary to continuous operation of the carrier, may not be worked on Sunday, except he be paid at the rate of time arid one-half. These decisions had the effect, only, of placing a limitation on the use of extra or furloughed employes for relief on Sunday, and these decisions were made with a full knowledge of the fact that, by so doing, the regularly assigned employe would necessarily be deprived of Sunday as a relief day. That is implicit in all of these decisions, and is clearly stated in Decision F.-669 of Express Board of Adjustment No. I, where it is stated that such relief may be afforded by furloughed or extra men to relieve the carrier of the burden of time and one-half provisions of the rule, and cited an example, with respect to a single position, of which the Board said: "That position may be relieved in any manner possible."

(I) That Mrs. Kerr was properly assigned and afforded a relief day under the provisions of Rule I I.

(2) She is not entitled to compensation at the rate of time and one

half for Sundays worked since the effective date of Rule I 1.

OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier employs at Spencer, North Carolina, three telephone switchboard operators working round the clock. The three positions are seven-day positions necessary to the continuous operation of the Carrier.

The question for decision is whether the senior of the three operators is entitled to be assigned Sunday as her day off even though this would compel Carrier to pay the penalty rate to an extra employe for Sunday work.

The question turns on the interpretation of Rule I I adopted in its revised form as of January 11, 1944, as a result of mediation and arbitration after a hearing. (Case A-1436, Arb. 25.)

Rule I I, after providing that the penalty rate be paid for work performed on Sundays and the named legal holidays, contains the following exception which is the subject of our consideration here:

"* * * except that employes necessary to the continuous operation of the carrier and who are regularly assigned to such service will be assigned one regular day off duty in seven, Sunday if possible, and if required to work on such regularly assigned seventh day off duty will be paid at the rate of time and one-half time; when such assigned day off duty is not Sunday, work on Sunday will be paid for at straight-time rate."

Under this rule Carrier does not have, as it claims, absolute and uncontrolled discretion in every instance to assign as the day off whichever day of the week it chooses. To advance this claim is" to ignore the limitation of the phrase "Sunday if possible." Had that phrase been left out of the rule Carrier's claim would be well taken but its insertion is a qualification on Carrier's exercise of discretion in making such assignments. We are mindful, however, that the rule as expressed contemplates the patent impossibility of assigning Sunday as the day off to every employe regularly engaged in continuous operation.

Carrier's chief argument is that it does not have to assign Sunday off if by so doing it would be compelled to pay the relieving employe at the penalty rate. By such argument Carrier would have us read into the rule a proviso which is not there, namely that Sunday would be assigned as the day off only when Carrier could do so without becoming liable for the penalty rate. The rule is unambiguous and we may not, by construing it, add an additional condition.

The fact that Carrier would have to pay the penalty rate under some CIrCUmstances and would thereby be deprived of seven days continuous work at the pro rata rate is not a pertinent argument. The rule deals expressly with employes who are assigned to service necessary to the continuous operation of the carrier. It explicitly provides that an employe occupying such a position should have Sunday off if possible.

The precise question before us has not been previously ruled. A nqmber of decisions of the United States Railroad Labor Board have considered the design and general intent of Sunday rules when they were earliest adopted. Awards of this Division have also considered the same subject. However, such decisions did not discuss the point in issue.

On tire other hand, the issue before us was discussed and its probable application explored at length at the arbitration hearing which led to the adoption of Rule 11. There it was pointed out that under the terms of the rule as it was finally adopted a situation such as the one we have here would give rise to a laim from the Organization for time and one-half for an extra man used on ,iunday in place of the regular occupant. We find the following on pages 479 and 480 of the transcript of the proccedings before the Arbitration Board.

Mr. Mackay: Well, I meant your organization.

The Witness: Yes, I think you would."

We find in the rule that the only qualification of the duty imposed on Carrier to assign Sunday as the day off appears in tire term "if possible." This term gives the Carrier some latitude since "possible" must be given its usual meaning. Webster defines the word as something within the powers of performance tip

to the limits of one's ability as determined by the circumstances. Applying such definition to the circumstances of this case we conclude that Carrier trust assign Sunday as the day off for the senior operator if it can provide sonic one to do her work on that day. Carrier does not deny this is possible. (Compare Awarcl 2280.) The record indicates Carrier can do so. Such being the case the claim must be sustained.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of-the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD