vacated such assignment by moving to the assignment of relief clerk on Thursday, February 16 after which he worked five days on the assignment of relief clerk, then observed the rest days of such assignment. This he did for three weeks after which he returned to his former assignment. Furthermore, he moved from one assignment to another within the meaning of that term as used in Rule 10 (b) of the effective agreement when moving from the assignment of switching clerk to the assignment of relief clerk on Thursday, February 16, and when moving from the assignment of relief clerk to the assignment of switching clerk on Thursday, March 9.

In the circumstances, the claim which the Brotherhood is here attempting to assert on behalf of Cerk Myers cannot be valid and carrier respectfully requests that the Board so hold.

All relevant facts and arguments involved in this dispute have heretofore been made known to the employe representatives.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant holds a regular assignment as a switching clerk working Monday through Friday with rest days on Saturday and Sunday. There are several other assigned clerks in the same office including one regularly bulletined relief assignment which works Thursday through Monday with assigned rest days on Tuesday and Wednesday.

On February 16, 1950, the occupant of this relief assignment was given leave of absence to have an eye operation, and he did not return to work until March 9. The Agent in charge of the office asked claimant td fill the temporary vacancy and claimant consented, though he states "without the understanding that I would not be paid time and one-half for any time worked after I had worked my 40 hours."

Claimant worked his switching clerk assignment Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, February 13, 14 and 15. On Thursday, February 16, be transferred to the relief assignment and worked the five days of this assignment through the following Monday, taking its rest days off on Tuesday and Wednesday. He thus worked eight consecutive days-3 on one assignment, 5 on the other before he got these rest days. Because Sunday and Monday (Feb. 18 and 19) were rest days of his switching clerk assignment he claims the difference between time and one-half for these two days and the straight time rate that he was paid.

The Employes allege that the Carrier violated the seniority and bulletining rules of the Clerks' Agreement by "requiring or permitting a regular assigned employe to vacate his regular position and temporarily move to vacancy caused by other employe being absent * * * ". This resulted, they say, in "such employe being required to work more than five (5) days in a work week because the rest days of the position to which transferred is different from the rest days on his regular assignment"; and they argue that Rule 10 (b) of the Agreement does not permit the Carrier to compensate such employe at pro rata rate when worked in excess of five (5) days or forty (40) hours in a work week. They also rely on Rule 33 (d) to support the claim.

We cannot agree that the seniority and bulletining or assignment rules were violated. The Carrier cites one of these rules (5 (d) ) which specifically gives the Management discretion to blank a temporary vacancy, or to fill it, provided preference is given to an employe holding seniority in the group or class. The pertinent part of this rule stipulates that "temporary vacancies up to ninety (90) days, when occasioned by absence on account of sickness, may be blanked for all or any part of the period of the vacancy; should such position be filled it may be done at the discretion of the officer in charge." And a note to the rule adds: "When such temporary vacancies are filled, * * * preference for such work shall be given to employes holding seniority in group or class in which vacancy occurs."

Admittedly no other qualified employe was available to fill the temporary vacancy, and the Claimant held seniority in the group or class. The record is clear that the Carrier's Agent asked him to fill the temporary vacancy on the relief assignment, and that the Claimant voluntarily consented. He states in a letter to his local chairman -that he did consent when he was told no one else with necessary carload rate experience was available, but that he had no understanding it would not be paid at the overtime rate after he had worked "my 40 hours." This statement did not change his consent. It goes only to the question whether he is or is not entitled to overtime pay for the two days claimed; and that question must be determined in accordance with the applicable rules of the Agreement.

Although there was some argument as to whether the claimant might have been disciplined if he had not agreed to move temporarily to the relief assignment, that issue is not involved in the present case. The Carrier having the authority under Rule 5 (d) to fill the vacancy as it did, and the Claimant having accepted the temporary assignment, the charge that the seniority and bulletining rules were violated is not valid.

The claim that Rule 10 (b) requires payment of the overtime rate for Saturday and Sunday, February 18 and 19, is also not valid. This rule does require such payment for service in excess of 5 days or 40 hours "in a work week." But the Claimant did not work in excess of 5 days or 40 hours in any work week during the period between February 13 and March 9, 1950, with which we are here concerned. He worked only 3 days or 24 hours of the work week on his switching clerk assignment from Monday the 13th through Wednesday the 15th. He did not work the last two days of this work week and he did not get the rest days of that work week because on Thursday the 16th he transferred to the relief assignment where he worked three full weeks. In each of these weeks he worked 40 hours, Thursday through Monday, and was off Tuesday and Wednesday, the bulletined rest days of this assignment.

The term "work week" for regularly assigned employes is defined in the Agreement to "mean a work week beginning on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work." Thus when claimant moved to the relief assignment, he began a new work week on Thursday, and the following Saturday and Sunday were work days on this assignment while Tuesday and Wednesday were its assigned rest days. He took these rest days, and therefore he was properly paid straight time for Saturday and Sunday. He was no longer working his switching clerk assignment and not entitled to the rest days of that assignment. There is no claim here for the second and third week that he worked Saturday and Sunday on the relief assignment, and he is no more entitled to overtime for these days during the first week than he would be for the other two weeks.

This Division has repeatedly ruled that the specified rest days are an integral part of the work week of each bulletined assignment, that they are not attached to the individual employe so that he may carry them with him as he moves from one assignment to another. Moreover, Rule 10 (b) specifically excepts the payment of overtime rates for service in excess of 5 days or 40 hours "where such work is performed by an employe due to moving from one assignment to another. And the Claimant in this case clearly moved from his regular switching clerk assignment to fill the temporary vacancy on a different assignment.

As for Rule 33 (d) on which the Employes also rely, this is not applicable to the present case, for it deals with service rendered by an employe on his rest days relieving another employe who is assigned to work eight hours on such days. The Claimant here was not used on his rest days to relieve another employe. He took over for three weeks a complete assignment including both work days and rest days.

For the reasons stated, the claim must be denied.

Agreement not violated.

AWARD