strued as merely a rating rule. Were this not a fact the interpretation of Rule 20 as quoted hereinabove would be superfluous and completely without meaning. For a period of over 20 years the interpretation of Rule 15 of the current Clerks' Agreement has been consistently applied in accordance with the negotiated interpretation as it appeared in the June 1, 1927 Clerks' Agreement as is quoted hereinabove.

The employes would now come before this Division with the plea that the practice employed by this Carrier giving rise to this instant dispute in which they have concurred for such a long period of time must certainly involve a violation of Rule 4 of the current Clerks' Agreement. Such a contention is entirely untenable.

It is the position of the Carrier with respect to this particular phase of this dispute that Rule 15 of the current Clerks' Working Agreement is identical in principle to its immediate predecessor, Rule 20, of the Clerks' Agreement, dated June 1, 1927. The action of this Carrier falls squarely within the framework of Rule 15 of the current Clerks' Agreement. Rule 4 of the current Clerks' Agreement, relied upon by the employes as supporting their contention in this dispute contains, no provisions whatsoever relative to the temporary assignment of clerical employes nor to the applicable rate to be paid these employes as is the situation in this particular dispute. To place a restrictive meaning upon the concurred in interpretation of Rule 15 as is contained in the position of the employes in this dispute, would be contrary to the agreed upon practices on this Carrier for a period of many, many years.

It is universally conceded that every word in a contract must be considered in the light of its generally accepted meaning. To concur in the interpretation of the employes in their restrictive reading of Rule 15 is in fact a deletion of a portion of this rule, reducing it to a mere rating proposition.

In conclusion the Carrier positively asserts that the employes have presented no evidence on this property in this case supporting their contention that the Carrier violated Rule 4 of the Clerks' Working Agreement. Rule 4, by its very nature, was not designed to cover situations involving an emergency. That an emergency existed at this location during the time the petitioners were temporarily assigned to work in the billing department, is beyond dispute. A strike of Express Agency employes was the direct cause of this emergency situation, which situation was aggravated by the absenteeism among the piece work operators.

On this basis and on the basis of all that is contained herein the Carrier respectfully requests the Division to find this claim as being without merit and to deny it accordingly.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is by the Organization on behalf of a number of clerks from a group of fifteen holding certain named and assigned positions. The names of the clerks on whose behalf claim is made and the positions held by them do not clearly appear. The facts are not in substantial dispute. The claim is a continuing one and the beginning is fixed by the Organization as March 1, 1947.

The group held their assigned positions in the Freight Office at Pier 22, North River, New York City. It appears that the assigned hours of the group were from 8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M, At the same location Bill Clerks and Comptometer Operators are assigned. These come under the same Agreement as the employes on whose behalf the claim is made. Beginning March 1, 1947 the Carrier for varying periods of time, during their assigned hours, suspended the work of the assigned positions of some of this group and required the occupants thereof to perform work in the Bill Clerk and

Comptometer Operator positions. There is evidence that the assigned hours of the Bill Clerk and Comptometer Operator positions were from 4:00 P. M. to 12:30 A. M. and that some of the members of the group worked the positions from 1:00 P. M. to 5:00 P. M., or the last four hours of the assigned hours of their own assignments.

The Organization says that this practice amounted to the suspension of work during regular hours of an assignment and requiring the occupant to work in another position for the purpose of absorbing overtime contrary to the rules.

One theory advanced by the Carrier is that the Freight Office group, including those on whose behalf the claim is made and the Bill Clerks and Comptometer Operators, function as a unit without the work limitations and restrictions contended for by the Organization and that since no work was performed outside of assigned hours there is no basis for a claim. In this connection it asserts substantially that there was a strike of Railway Express Agency employes which caused a temporary increase in LCL shipments and shipments of U. S. Mail Parcel Post by railroad which temporarily increased the volume of necessary work of Bill Clerks and Comptometer Operators thus making it temporarily necessary for employes of this group to assist with that increased work, and thereby no violation resulted.

Another theory advanced if the presentation has been correctly interpreted, is that, assuming that the work required off the regular assignments represented temporary assignments, it was controlled by Rule 15. And being thereby controlled and the regular assignments commanding a higher rate than the temporary ones, the appropriate rate was under Rule 15 (a) that of the regularly assigned positions. This they received, And this being true there is no basis for a claim.

The record is not convincing, in the light of the pronouncement of this Division, that without limitation or restriction the Carrier had the right to have all of the work of all positions performed as a unit. The occupants of the assigned positions had the right to have their seniority and promotion rights protected.

The Carrier does, under Rule 15, have the right to temporarily assign employes to either a higher or lower rated position. If the temporary assignment is to a higher rated position the rate of that position applies. If it is to a lower rated position the rate of the regular assignment applies.

This, however, under the decisions of the Division, is not an unqualified right. Work suspended in a position for the purpose of absorbing overtime of another, whether it be higher or lower rated is not permissible. It is prohibited under Rule 4 as follows:

"Employes will not be required to suspend work during regular hours to absorb overtime."

If therefore the employes involved suspended work in their regular positions to absorb overtime of Bill Clerks and Comptometer Operators the claim is compensable, otherwise it is not. The determination depends upon the facts as disclosed by the record.

It appears that some of this work was customarily performed by piece work operators and some by assigned employes. The necessity for suspension and transfer, the Carrier asserts, depended upon absenteeism of piece work operators and the described unusual conditions which produced the increased amount of work. The work had to be kept current. It could not be kept current by the employes doing that work within their assigned hours. If performed by the employes performing that work regularly it would have required them to perform it in overtime hours. There is an absence of showing that they could not have performed it in overtime hours.

The conclusion therefore that these employes were required to suspend work during the regularly assigned hours of their assigned positions to absorb overtime of Bill Clerks and Comptometer Operators appears inevitable. The claim to the extent capable from the record must be sustained.

Since those on whose behalf the claim is made are not named and the time or times when each worked is not set out the names of those entitled to be compensated and the amount of compensation to which each is entitled will have to be ascertained by a check on the property.

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 basis of the claim has been sustained.

AWARD