performed which was the exclusive work of this claimant. No additional employe was used to perform exclusive work of claimant's position. His claim is not valid."

This Board has often cited the principle that if clerical work incident to a position increases and is assigned to another position, that when it decreases, the Carrier may abolish the position and return the remaining work to the position from whence it came and to which it is incident. That principle was upheld although such clerical work was incident to a position outside of the Clerks' Agreement. See Award Nos. 806, 1405, 1418, 2138, 2334, 3211, 3735, and 3989 of this Division.

It should be noted that the Committee has claimed time and one-half for Mr. McGriff. Time and one-half is a penalty established to discourage the carrier from requiring an employe to work under the conditions for which the penalty rate is prescribed. This is a request for a double penalty account of the carrier not requiring the employe to perform work, notwithstanding the existence of a penalty rule which exists for the purpose of discouraging the carrier from requiring an employe to work on a holiday.

In conclusion, the Carrier has shown that it has not violated any rules of the Clerks' Agreement, but rather that it has complied with them.

The Carrier affirmatively states that the substance of all matters referred to herein has been made the subject of correspondence or discussion in conference between the representatives of the parties hereto.

The claim is without basis under the rules of the Agreement and should be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was the regular occupant of a sevenday position, Yard Checker No. 1, at Carrier's West 11th Street Yard, Des Moines, Iowa, with assigned hours 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Thursday through Monday and rest days Tuesday-Wednesday. His principal duties included the checking of trains and the carding of cars, including checking and carding Wabash Train No. 95. His rest days were part of a regular relief assignment.

At above location Carrier maintained three yard clerk positions around the clock. There were also two Yard Checker positions, Claimant's 7 A.M.3 P.M. position plus one other, 3 P.M: 11:00 P.M. During the hours 11:00 P.M: 7 A.M., on all days and from 3:00 P.M. to 11 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays (the rest days of Yard Checker position No. 2) Yard Checkers were not employed. In these hours the respective Yard Clerks included among their duties the checking of trains, the carding of cars, and other work done by the Yard Checkers when on duty. The record does not show that the Yard Clerks performed work of this sort when the Yard Checkers were on duty.

On December 17, 1954, Carrier by bulletin notified Clerks and Checkers that on Saturdays, December 25, 1954 and January 1, 1955, the three Yard Clerk positions would work around the clock, But Claimant's Yard Checker position was blanked on those otherwise regular workdays of his. On each of those holidays Yard Clerk Reynolds checked and carded Wabash Train No. 95, normally done by Claimant McGriff.

The issue posed by the instant claim comes down to this: Under the Parties' Agreement did the Carrier have the right to permit Yard Clerk Reynolds to make the above-mentioned check?

A number of Awards by this Division (e.g., 7396, 7294, 7136, 6531, and 6385) establish that, under language similar or identical to that in Rules 26(b) and 16(b) cited above by the Parties, a carrier has the right to blank a position on a holiday when the work of the position is not performed.

Awards of this Division (e.g., 7134) also establish that under such language and under Decision No. 2 of the Forty-Hour Week Committee and under language similar or identical to that in Rule 7 of the instant Agreement, if regular work is to be performed on a holiday it must be performed by the regularly assigned employe rather than by an extra man. That is, under such circumstances the Carrier may not blank the regular employe's position.

Awards of this Division (e.g., 7137) further establish that under such language a Carrier has the right to blank a regular employe's position on a holiday and give some of his normally performed duties to another regular employe if the latter is entitled to do the work and sometimes does it while the former is on regular duty. In other words, some duties of a regular employe's blanked position may be done on a holiday by another regular employe if the former does not possess exclusive "title" to same on regular work days.

The above-stated issue then in the instant case becomes one of fact: Does the record contain substantial evidence compelling the conclusion that Claimant McGriff had exclusive "title" to checking and carding Wabash Train No. 95 on the days when he was on regular duty?

On behalf of an affirmative answer to this question stands the fact that the position filled by Claimant was a seven-day one, with rest days of Claimant part of a regular relief assignment. From this it may be concluded that on normal days Yard Clerk Reynolds was not used to check Wabash Train No. 95. There is also positive evidence that, when McGriff was on duty, he always checked and carded that train. Carrier does not assert otherwise but limits itself to the statement that, during hours when Yard Checkers were not regularly assigned, e.g., 11 P.M. to 7 A.M., on all days, Yard Clerks checked and carded trains. We do not think that this is sufficient to compel the conclusion that on McGriff's regular work days Yard Clerk Reynolds shared with Claimant the work of checking and carding Wabash Train No. 95 (or for that matter, other trains). On the contrary. The record supports the conclusion that this work was exclusively McGriff's on his regular workdays.

Such being the answer to the factual question, it follows from the reasoning set forth in the Awards cited (particularly 7134, 7136, and 7137) that Carrier did not have the right to permit Yard Clerk Reynolds to check and card Wabash Train No. 95 on December 25, 1954, and January 1, 1955. A sustaining award is in order.

This conclusion, however, does not wholly dispose of the instant claim. The System Committee of the Organization does not establish that on those days Yard Clerk Reynolds performed any duties of McGriff other than those connected with Wabash Train No. 95. Claimant asks for eight hours compensation at penalty rate. Penalty rate will be allowed (Awards 5837; 7134). But it will be allowed only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15 (a) of the Parties' controlling Agreement, which states that an employe called to perform work not continuous with his regular work period shall be paid a minimum of three hours for two hours work or less, with time and one-half on the minute basis if he works more than two hours on such call.

That the Agreement was violated as per Opinion.

AWARD