The Carrier holds that, under the provision of Rule 39(a), which is quoted in this Carrier's statement of facts, when the rest days of a position .are changed, the employe affected has the right to either take the new :assignment or exercise his seniority rights to any position held by a junior employe. When the rest days of Mr. Hawley's position of yard clerk at Conneaut, Ohio were changed effective Sunday, May 23, 1954, and he elected to remain on the position, he started to work on a new assignment and his work on that new assignment could not be tied in any way to his former assignment. There is no basis for the claim for time and one-half payment for work on a regularly assigned work day.
The Carrier's position in this case is supported by the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board Award No. 6211, Docket No. CL-6230, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes vs. Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) with Referee Curtis G. Shake participating, which denied a claim for time lost when rest days were changed. Also, Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board Award No. 6281, Docket No. TE-6212, the Order of Railroad Telegraphers vs. the Southern Railway Company with Referee Adolph E. Wenke participating, which denied a claim for time and one-half rate in a similar case on the basis that claimant's old work week ended after he had completed his work the day before his rest days were changed and his new work week started on the effective date of the change. Therefore, he performed no work on rest days.
This dispute has been handled in the usual manner up to and including the Chief Operating Officer of the Carrier as prescribed by the Railway Labor Act. All data submitted in support of the Carrier's position were presented to the employes and made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant B. D. Hawley was regularly assigned as Yard Clerk at Conneaut, Ohio with rest days of Sunday and Monday. He was properly given advance notice per Rule 39 (c) that effective Sunday, May 23, 1954, his assigned rest days were being changed to Monday and Tuesday. Claimant worked six consecutive days from Tuesday, May 18 through Sunday, May 23, and was off the following day. Claim is made that Hawley was entitled to overtime, instead of pro-rata rate, for working on Sunday, May 23, which assertedly was the sixth day of his work week. Carrier responds that by electing to remain on the position after the change in rest days Claimant accepted a new assignment in which Sunday, May 23, was a regular work day.
The interpretation expressed in Awards 7319 and 7320 is deemed controlling in this case. Carrier's action here changed Claimant's work week but not his assignment. His new work week did not begin until Wednesday, May 26. Thus Sunday, May 23 was the sixth day of his work week at the time, and the overtime rate was applicable for work performed on that date.
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