OPINION OF THE BOARD; Claimant seeks ten days additional compensation because he asserts that he was improperly required to vacate his relief assignment while working the second trick at Coronas. It is not claimed that he was not properly paid for his service at Coronas, but Organization contends that he is entitled to two days pay for each of the ten days involved Le. one day for work at Corunna, and one day account of not worked on his relief assignment.

We think Article 13 (a) is applicable. It reads:

"Regularly assigned employes will not be required to perform service on other than their regular positions except in emergencies. When they are required to perform service on other than their regular positions, they will be paid the rate of the position they fill but not less than their regular rate, and in all cases will be allowed actual necessary expenses while away from their regular assigned station.

"In no case will less than one day's pay be allowed for each twenty-four (24) hours held out of their tegular job or away from home station.

"Such employes will be paid at rate of sixty-five cents (65c) per hour for waiting and travel time from home station to relief point and return from relief point to home station, except that no waiting time will be paid at relief point when Company assumes lodging expense."

In the instant case, Claimant was diverted from his regular assignment because of the illness of the regular second trick operator at Corunna and the absence of extra operators. A reasonable interpretation of the rule indicates that there was thus created an emergency justifying the diversion. It was so held in Awards 815 and 2511.

We cannot agree with Organization that in order to ,justify Carrier in making an assignment under the claim of emergency, it must first appear that there are no other available regular employes who may be used on their relief day on a call basis. See Award 2511.

Award 2695 cited by Organization, is-not in point here. The Referee in that case specifically pointed out that Award 2511 was distinguishable because of a difference in the Agreement. In Award 2695, the Referee stated (Referring to Award 2511):

"Under the agreement in that case (2511), regularly assigned employes were not to be required to perform service on other than their regular assigned positions except in emergencies. That situation was disposed of there by a holding that an emergency did exist. We think the distinguishing features are such that the award is not a controlling precedent here."

We are unable to find that there was a violation of the Agreement under the facts in this case.

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD