Under the facts and evidence and for the reasons set forth herembefore the Carrier maintains the claim as submitted by the employes is unsupported and unjustified and respectfully requests that same be denied.

The evidence contained in this submission has been discussed in conference and handled by correspondence with the duly authorized representative of the Clerks' Brotherhood.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is presented to us because of the alleged improper assignment of work by the Carrier. The Claimant was the incumbent of the position of Clerk-Typist and his assigned work week was Monday to Friday inclusive. The days on which the violations of the agreement are alleged to have occurred were on Washington's Birthday, and a Sunday and Saturday.

The Claimant Typist-Clerk had as his duties work in connection with the billing of shipments and typing of waybills after they had been rated.

On the dates involved, the Chief Clerk, whose work week was also Monday to Friday inclusive, was called to perform all the clerical duties in connection with certain shipments originating those dates. Part of the Chief Clerk's duties was to rate all shipments which originated at this station.

The Organization asserts that the Claimant should have had a call on each of the days here in question. In support of its position the Organization cites Rule 7 (f) and Rule 7 (i) of the effective Agreement.

"Rule 7 (f). No overtime hours will be worked except by direction of proper authority, except in cases of emergency where advance authority is not obtainable.

"In working daily overtime, incumbents of the positions requiring overtime shall be given preference, except where extra employes are assigned in accordance with these rules."

"Rule 7 (i). Where work is required by the Carrier to be per-

performed by an available extra or unassigned employe who will

otherwise not have forty hours of work that week; in all other

cases by the regular employe."

Rule 7 (f) has to do with daily overtime, contemplating proper assignment for time over eight hours on a position during a day. Clearly, this rule has no application to the present instance.

Rule 7 (i) is the pertinent rule and the one which we must consider

The Chief Clerk and the Claimant are employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement. The record indicates that the Chief Clerk did, on occasions, assist the Claimant in the billing of shipments. Such practice apparently was being condoned by both parties.

Such practice of assistance was purely to help the Clerk-Typist in instances when the requirements of the service demanded it. It did not give the Chief Clerk the right to perform such work in preference to the Clerk-Typist, who had the duty of billing as a part of his bulletined duties.

We believe that Rule 7 (i) covers this situation and that such rule has been violated by the Carrier. Each day involved was a day which was not a part of any assignment. There were no extra clerks available nor was

an unassigned employe with less than forty hours used. The wordage of Rule 7 (i) which states ". . . in all other cases by the regular employe." covers this instance.

Carrier has attempted to construe "the regular employe" as meaning a regular employe. Such a construction would place practically limitless bounds on the Carrier in assigning work in similar instances and would do violence to the specific wording of Rule 7 (i).

The work of billing shipments was the regular work of the Clerk-Typist's position. It was not the regular work of the Chief Clerk.

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 Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD