Bearing in mind that claimants as occupants of Extra Board Positions 7 and 8 day after day often did not know in advance what position (if any) they would work, and by the same token what rate of pay would apply, what hours of assignment would be, or even at what office they would report for work or what duties they would have to perform, or whether they would work one day or five days, or, indeed, no days at all (these positions have no guaranteed minimum days work per week) during their Monday-Sunday workweek, Carrier cannot under any stretch of the imagination conceive of any justification for terming them regularly assigned employes.
In conclusion, Carrier would point out that insofar as its records of this dispute show there is no indication that the Organization contends that Mrs. McNichols was entitled to pay from February 22 because, having relieved on Position No. 249 on February 21 and 23, she was entitled to pay for February 22 just the same as if she had been regular occupant of that position. Carrier does not believe Organization will now so contend, since such a contention would be a nullity insofar as Griffin's claim is concerned, as Griffin relieved on Position No. 189 on February 21 and Position No. 188 February 23. Furthermore, it appears most unlikely that it would be contended that Mrs. McNichols was regularly assigned to Position No. 249, on which she relieved regular occupant because of illness for nine work days in a period of twelve days.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants were extra employes assigned to one of two extra lists maintained on the property by Agreement. Accordin to the Agreement, the number of positions on each extra list is designate by the Division Chairman. These positions are then bulletined and assigned in the same manner as regular positions. Once on the extra list, hawever, it appears that the assigned employes are in the same position as extra employes generally; i. e., they are assigned temporarily to fill such vacancies as may arise due to illness, vacations, etc., and have no guarantee of regular employment.
relieving its regular occupant who was on vacation. He did not work on February 22 Washington's Birthday. On February 23, he worked position 188, the regular occupant of which was also on vacation.
Claimant McNichols acquired Position No. 8 on the extra list on January 19, 1955, by displacing another occupant under the rules. She worked a short vacancy on regular position 249, February 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 25, relieving its regular occupant who was off because of illness. She did not work on February 22, Washington's Birthday.
Both Claimants contend that they are entitled to a day's straight time pay for Washington's Birthday under Section 1, Article II of the Chicago National Agreement of August 21, 1954, which provides:
In Awards 7430 and 7431, we held that extra or unassigned employes temporarily assigned to fill regular positions were not "regularly assigned" within the meaning of the above-cited rule. Those awards are controlling here unless the maintenance of extra lists by Agreement, and the bulletining and assignment of employes to positions on the extra list in the same manner as to other positions, make the status of these Claimants different from that of the extra or unassigned employes involved therein. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Claimants, once they were assigned to a position on the extra list, were in any different position than extra employes on a Carrier where there is no procedure for bulletining and assignment to extra lists. They had no guarantee of regularity in their work assignments, nor is there anything in the record to show that they actually had such regularity without a guarantee. The key to the interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "regularly assigned" in Article II, Section 1, is not necessarily found in the method of assignment or in the detailed analysis of Agreement rules wherein the words are used in various connections. As stated in the awards cited and in Second Division Awards 2052 and 2169, the purpose of the rule was to assure employes who had a normal and dependable take-home pay that it would be maintained in weeks during which a holiday occurs. Each case wherein it is claimed that an employe is "regularly assigned" so as to come within Article II, Section 1, must be decided by the application of this standard, rather than by rules as to methods of assignment, workweek of extra employes and other rules which use similar language in dealing with subjects other than the special subject of holiday pay. This is not to say that such rules may not be helpful in deciding specific cases; but they must always be considered in conjunction with the underlying intent of the National Agreement.
In this case, since it appears that the Claimants were simply extra employes temporarily assigned to fill regular positions, the claim should be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 ; 7432-10 18