STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS: Ted T. Sanders was an Extra Messenger.
Messenger's Job No. 33 was regularly assigned to A. C. Pinter, who was also an Extra Clerk. The hours of assignment on Messenger's Job'No. 33 are 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday the assigned weekly rest days.
A. C. Pinter, the regular occupant of Messenger's Job No. 33, was absent from that position filling a temporary vacancy on a clerical assignment, and
When the rules of the Schedule for Clerks, effective November 1, 1948, were revised so as to conform to the Agreement of March 19, 1949, the rule relating to the payment of daily overtime was not changed.
The Carrier affirmatively states that the substance of all matters referred to herein has been the subject of correspondence or discussion in conference between the representatives of the parties hereto and made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim here is in two parts. The first part is an alleged violation of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Memoranda of Agreement entered into by and between the Carrier and the Organization effective September 1 1949. The Organization contends that Ted Sanders was, in violation of the Agreement, required to work Saturday and Sunday, March 4 and 5, 1950, his rest days for which he was paid at the basic straight time rate whereas under the provisions of Rule 12 he should have been paid one and one-half times the basic rate.
The second is that he was required to work a second eight hours in twenty-four for which has was paid the straight time rate in violation of the basic day and overtime and call rules thus entitling him to the time and onehalf rate for the second eight hours.
The position or positions occupied were those of Messenger. The status of Sanders was that of Extra Messenger. From the joint statement of facts on which the claim was presented it appears that on Monday, February 27, through Wednesday, March 1, 1950, Sanders occupied Job No. 33, 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. The rest days of the position were Saturday and Sunday. From Thursday, March 2, through Monday, March 6, he occupied Job No. 34, 4:00 P. M. to 12:30 A. M. The rest days of this position were Tuesday and Wednesday. On Tuesday, March 7, he occupied Job No. 34 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. He occupied neither of the positions pursuant to bid. The dates March 6 and 7 and the work on those days constitute no part of the first part of the claim. They relate solely to the second part.
Rule 12, Section 1 (a) of the Agreement in general terms established the 40-Hour Work Week for assigned and unassigned employes. The work week of an assigned employe is defined as a week beginning on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work. The work week of an unassigned employe is defined as seven consecutive days starting on Monday.
Except a provided under Rule 12, Section 1 (g) the rest days of assigned and unassigned employes are the sixth and seventh days of the work week. The exception however has no application here.
Sanders was not a regularly assigned employe within the meaning of Rule 12, Section 1 (i), therefore a week for him was seven days commencing on Monday, and he was entitled to Saturday and Sunday as his rest days unless in this instance he was subject to the exceptions contained in the two partially quoted paragraphs of Rule 12, Section 3 (a).
It is to be observed that the exceptions supply (1) to an employe moving from one assignment to another (2) from an extra or furloughed list or (3) to an extra or furloughed list. The second and third exceptions are of no concern here.
Whether or not his employment fell within the exceptions depends upon the definition to be applied to the term "assignment" as it is used in the exceptions.
The position of the Organization is that no employe may be regarded as occupying an assignment unless the position he is filling is being filled pur· suant to bulletin and bid by him.
The Carrier contends substantially that "assignment" as used in the exceptions encompasses any and all work which the employe is required to perform for which he is qualified under the Agreement whether it be a bulletined and bid position or the filling of temporary vacancies. It further contends removal from one temporary vacancy to another comes within the exceptions.
It is thought that from an analysis of Rule 12, Section 1 (i), as follows, the proper definition of "assignment" as used in the exceptions may be obtained:
TMs provision defines "regularly assigned" employes and names but in terms fails to define "unassigned" employes. It recognizes two classes of employes, the "regularly assigned" and the "unassigned." It, read with the two parts of paragraphs quoted from Rule 12, Section 3 (a), at least inferentially recognizes but two classes of work, one which is performed under a regular assignment and one which is not.
It would seem to follow that an employe who, in his employment, falls within the second class is not performing work of an assignment, and when he moves from one such position to another he does not, within te meaning of the exceptions discused, move from one asignment to another.
On the basis discussed the conclusion is that the first part of the claim has been sustained. See Awards 5494, 5495, 5705, Dockets CL-5840, Award 5794, CL-5842, Award 5795.
As to the second part of the claim, on Monday, March 6, Sanders occupied Job No. 34. He worked therein from 4:00 P. M. to 12:30 A. M., March 7. On March 7 he occupied Job No. 33 from 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. . He therefore worked two regular shifts of eight hours each in a period of twentyfour consecutive hours.
This in the light of previous Awards of this Division entitled him to compensation for the second eight hours at one and one-half times the rate of the position. 5796-9 1062