(3) Where a practice is widespread and well established the only reasonable inference is that both parties have acquiesced in the practice. See Award No. 6607.

The Carrier has also presented evidence that its practice under the agreement rules relied upon by the Employes has been widespread and well established.

In conclusion, the Carrier respectfully reasserts that the Employes' claim in the instant dispute is entirely without support under the governing agree ment rules in effect between the parties hereto and should, for the reasons previously expressed herein, be denied in its entirety.

All that is contained herein is either known or available .to the Employes or their reprensentatives.

(Exhibits not Reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The parties here are agreed that the claim must stand or fall upon the meaning we give to the words "assigned" and "available" as used in the rules, Sections 10 (b) and 14 of Article II of the Agreement.

Employes are contending that unassigned Train Dispatchers are entitled to perform five consecutive days' service, if and when available and "* * * such service is * * * on a day-to-day basis with temporary vacancies to be awarded in the order in which they arise." It will be noted here that "awarded" is used instead of "assigned."

The Carrier says however, that in the circunstances here that when Claimant assumed the temporary vacancy of the Chief Dispatcher he was "assigned" and was not "available" for the 9:00 P. M. assignment on which he bases his claim, because he had to remain on his assignment un til completed.

The Organization supports its argument in part by saying that:

"The term 'assigned' or 'regularly assigned'-and they are synonymous terms has a well understood meaning in the industry, as we recently had occasion to point out. In Award 8762 we said:

'A "regularly assigned employe" may be defined as one who has been assigned to and holds tenure indefinitely (go long as it exists) on a regularly established position with regularly assigned hours and rate of pay. (See Awards 2170 and 2297, Second Division, and Awards 7430 and 7432, Third Division).' "

We adopted the same definition in Award 8778.

The only definition of "regularly assigned" which we find in Award 2170 supra reads:

"The term 'regularly assigned employe' is not a new or novel term which originated in the August 21, 1954 Conference Committee Agreement. The term had been used in prior agreements. The normal and ordinary meaning of the words is well under-

stood and there is nothing in Article II Section 1 of the August 21, 1954 agreement which might be construed as giving to the words a meaning different from their ordinary usage."

"These awards, if they were accepted as defining 'regularly assigned employe' as used in the Agreement of August 21, 1954, would rob the agreement of much of its substance. The term 'regularly assigned employe' was used in that agreement only to exclude from the holiday pay rule those individuals who might under the rules of various agreements be hired from time to time to do extra work not embraced in the positions to which employes were regularly assigned. It had nothing whatever to do with the permanence of an assignment of an employe to fill a regularly established position."

Still quoting:

"The fact that it is anticipated that the assignment will be terminated upon the return of the usual incumbent is irrelevant. During the assignment the employe filling the position is nevertheless 'regularly assigned'." (Emphasis ours)

So much for Second Division Award 2170.

"Since the claimant was a carman subject to the controlling agreement and occupied a regular position within the terms of said agreement on the dates in question, he was a regularly assigned employe within the intent and meaning of Section 1 of Artcile 11 of the Agreement of August 21, 1954 and therefore eligible to receive the benefits thereof."

So much for Second Division Award 2297.

"* * *A regularly assigned employe, on the other hand, knows that he will work each day on the same job, under similar conditions, and with a stable weekly or monthly income."

So much for our Award 7430.

Now let us have a look at our Award 7432.

The Opinion of the Board starts out by saying:

"Claimants were extra employes assigned to one of two extra lists maintained on the property by Agreement. According to the Agreement, the number of positions on each extra list is designated by the Division Chairman. These positions are then bulletined and assigned in the same manner as regular positions. Once on the extra list, however, 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." (Emphasis ours)

Then the award goes on to point out that the claimants, even though "assigned" as noted were not "regularly assigned" within the meaning of the rule cited.

It is to be noted that the definition of a "regular assigned employe" with which we started our discussion and which was born in the four awards above analyzed was concerned with interpretation of those words as found in the Forty Hour Week Agreement and the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, and the Organization here contends

"* * * that we must bear in mind that Awards of this Division which have particular reference to the Forty Hour Week Agreement have little or no application to Train Dispatcher claims, excepting perhaps as to broad general principles fairly applicable to any dispute which my be brought here. * * *"

Be that as it may, the Organization will not now be heard to reject the definition of a "regularly assigned employe" which it itself introduced at the argument, nor will it be allowed to ignore the awards that gave it birth. in all four of which awards the Organization was urging that the employes were "regularly assigned employes" within the meaning of the definition used as controlling in those awards.

This referee was handed the docket in TD-7865 and was asked to study that portion of the "Employes' Oral Submission" having to do with the meeting in Chicago on June 8, 1949, in Room 1041, Railway Exchange Building at which "Article lI, Section 10(b) proposed by the Organization was thoroughly discussed." Therein appears this quotation:

"Mr. Kirkpatrick said a fundamental difference of opinion was involved. He stated that the Santa Fe does not assign more than than any one man .to one position. He declared that this rule was uniformly followed in respect to all other non-operating crafts."

Whatever may have been the discussion at that meeting, our responsibility here is to interpret Article 11, Section 10 (b).

The Organization states in its brief

"* * * the Agreement before us is an unusual one in a number of respects. One of those unusual aspects, also previously noted,

is that the Agreement makes provisions only for `assigned' and `unassigned' Train Dispatchers. The typical pattern of Train Dispatcher and other Agreements is to classify employes as `regularly assigned' and `extra'. The choice of language in the confronting case is not to be disregarded. On the contrary, the choice of words is significant and it was deliberate,"

With this statement we can agree. No doubt it was deliberate on both sides, hence the confusion and the reason the case is before us.

The Organization contends that claimant could not be an "assigned" train dispatcher and unassigned train dispatcher at the same time. We think under .the language in this rule he can, and that is the position taken by the Carrier. See Award 7432.

We conclude that claimant was "assigned" at the time this temporary vacancy arose and that he was not "available" to fill the 9 o'clock assignment.

The Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

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

That the Carrier did not violate the agreement.

AWARD