There would be no purpose in having a rule of the Supplemental Agreement which would make it impossible to provide relief at a station where there were less than six of said positions. It certainly could not have been the intent of the parties, by Section 2 of the Supplemental Agreement, to either deprive the employes in seven day positions at stations where there are less than six such positions of their day off or to force the Carrier to create new and unnecessary positions to bring the number up to six."

The case covered by Award 4133 is sufficiently similar to the case under consideration as to justify the suggestion that the reasoning of the Board in that Award should be equally applicable in the instant case, and the claim accordingly denied.

We believe we have shown that it was not practicable to establish a rest day relief position to protect the work here involved, but even if it had been practicable there is nothing whatever in Article I or any other provision of the Agreement that would substantiate the payment sought by these claimants. Where do you find in the rules a provision that if the Carrier does not establish all practicable rest day relief positions, it must use regular employes on their rest days at punitive rate?

The rest day rule provides for relieving employes on their rest days-not for working them. They cannot have the right to be relieved and at the same time the conflicting right to work. When the Carrier relieved these claimants on their rest days it fulfilled completely its obligation to them. A rule that provides for punitive pay if an employe is required to work on his rest day does not give such employe the right to demand, in any circumstances, that he be worked on such day.

The demand for the work is directly at variance with the prior demand for the rest day. The purpose of the rest day rule was to secure relief from work, not the privilege of working extra time at punitive rate. The rule provides for one rest day in seven consecutive days; the Employes should not be permitted to use it as an instrument to secure an additional work day at a premium rate when the Carrier is in position to relieve them for rest.

For reasons stated hereinabove, it is the position of the Carrier that the contention of the Employes is without merit and should be dismissed, and the accompanying claim accordingly denied.

All matters contained in this submission have been the subject of discussion in conference and/or correspondence between the parties.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This case presents the question whether regularly assigned employes were properly relieved by an extra employe on their days off.

Mediation Agreement Case A-2070 Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, Article 1, Section 1, so far as pertinent, provides:

"(b) Regular relief positions shall be created for the purpose of carrying out the rest day provisions of paragraph (a) and shall be bulletined. Such relief positions shall be assigned six (6) days work per week . . .

Where it is not practicable, because of number of rest days involved or because of location of positions, to cover all rest days on a seniority district by establishment of regular relief assignments of six (6) days, work on rest days not covered by such assignments may be performed by rualified extra men if available . . ."

The record establishes the existence of 6, and perhaps 7, positions within a radius of 26 miles for which it would have been practicable, because of number of rest days involved and because of locations to create a regular relief position They were 2 or 3 regular positions at fluffman, one at MK Yard and 3 at Goose Creek.

The Carrier did not at the outset bulletin a regular relief position for these positions; but instead worked a qualified extra employe on the 3 rest days at Goose reek and provided no relief at all at Huffman and MK Yard.

This step was initially justified upon the ground that telegraphers were scarce and that the extra employe, a woman, would not or could not for personal reasons travel to Huffman and MK Yard. The sufficiency of these reasons is challenged by the Organization, but we pass the point because, as soon as the claim was made, the Carrier bulletined a regular relief position (3 days each at Huffman and Goose Creek) on March 17 but received no bids. The fact that, ex post facto, no bid was received is not conclusive; it does not follow that, because no bid was received in March, none would have been received at the outset in January. The action of the Carrier in bulletining the regular relief position speaks louder than its initial determination that it was impracticable to do so. In these circumstances, we find that it was practicable, because of number of rest days involved and because of location of positions, to create a regular relief position and that the Carrier violated the Agreement by assigning the work to the extra employe in January before bulletining the relief position.

The Claimants were entitled to perform this rest day work unless they were properly relieved and they were not (Awards 3979, 4192, 4775). The claim should be sustained at time and one-half if any of the rest days not worked were Sundays (Awards 3979, 4192, 4775, 4841, 5347 and 5559); otherwise at the pro rata rate (Awards 4244, 4841, 5347 and 5559).

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

That the Agreement was violated as above found.

AWARD

Claim sustained in accordance with the foregoing Opinion and Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division