STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an agreement between the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, and its Employes, represented by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, bearing effective date of August 1, 1945 (Reprinted September 1, 191, Including Revisions), hereinafter referred to as the Telegraphers' Agreement. There is also in evidence an Agreement between the parties signed at Chicago, Illinois, August 21, 1954, by and between the participating Eastern, Western and Southeastern Carriers and Employes represented by the Fifteen Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations signatory thereto, which Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Chicago Agreement), was in effect on the dates involved in the instant claims. A copy of both the Telegraphers' Agreement and the Chicago Agreement is on file with your Board and by reference thereto, is hereby made a part of this dispute.
The dispute herein set forth was handled on the property in the usual manner to the highest officer designated by the Carrier to handle such disputes, in accordance with the Railway Labor Act, as amended. The Carrier refused to adjust the dispute on the property, leaving the Employes no alternative but to appeal to your Board.
To adopt the interpretation, the petitioner attempts to place on said agreement provisions by the claim in this docket, an extra unassigned employe would have to be considered both extra and assigned, a dual capacity diametrically opposed to that contemplated by the agreement.
The petitioner is simply attempting to secure through an award of this Division a new agreement provision over and above that which was agreed to by the parties. Inasmuch as the petitioner's position cannot be sustained by any rule of the agreement the carrier respectfully submits that within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, the instant claim involves request for change in agreement, which is beyond the purview of this Board. It is a well-established principle that it is not the function of this Board to modify an existing rule or supply a new rule when none exists. To accept petitioner's position in this docket would definitely be tantamount to writing into the agreement a provision which does not appear therein and was never intended by the parties.
The Carrier asserts that it has conclusively established that the claimants were extra unassigned employes and that, therefore, the claim is without basis under the provisions of Section 1, Article 11, of Agreement dated August 21, 1954. It is requested that said claim be denied.
All data herein submitted have been presented to the duly authorized representative of the employes and are made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: This case involves the Claim of extra employes to holiday pay allegedly due them under Section 1, Article 11 of the August 21, 1954, National Agreement. In numerous Awards the Second and Third Divisions of this Board have held that "regularly assigned" employes, as that term has been traditionally understood in the railroad industry, are the only employes covered by said provision. See Third Division Awards 7430, 7431, 7432 and 7721; Second Division Awards 2052, 2169 and 2297. Claimants were not regularly assigned employes. Nor do Claimants receive support from Rule 11 of the Parties' Collective Agreement, which Rule is clearly concerned only with the "rate of pay".
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; 7980-11 540