Continuing on to the next paragraph of the March 19, 1949 Conference Committee Agreement.-Article II, Section 1 (i), (Rule 36i/z (i) of the July 15, 1949 agreement), the term "work week" for regularly assigned employes shall mean a week beginning on :he first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work, and for unassigned employes shall mean a period of seven consecutive days starting with Monday.

There has been no dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the words "regularly assigned employes" as used in Article II, Section 1 (i) of the March 19, 1949 Conference Committee Agreement, nor has there been any dispute as to the work days of a work week of a regularly assigned employe under that rule.

When one considers together Article 11, Section 1 (h) and 1 (i) of the March 19, 1949 Conference Committee Agreement and Article II, Section 1 of the August 21, 1954 Conference Committee Agreement, the similarity of the wording in Article II, Section 1 !i) of the former agreement and Article 11, Section 1 of the latter agreement is such that the employes specified in the holiday pay rule are the regularly assigned employes whose "work week" begins on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work.

The Forty Hour Work Week Agreement clearly distinguishes extra, unassigned or furloughed employes :from regularly assigned employes and the same distinction is apparent in Article 11, Section 1 of the August 21, 1954 Agreement where the rule limits holiday pay to regularly assigned hourly and daily rated employes. There is no difference in the meaning of the words between two agreements.

The Organization, in its May 22, 1953 proposal, sought a rule which would have given all employes seven holidays off with pay in each year, and having been unsuccessful in securing such a rule through the collective bargaining processes of the Railway Labor Act, they are here seeking to achieve that aim by Board Award in the guise of an interpretation of an agreement rule.

All data in support of Carrier's position have been presented to the employes or duly authorized representatives thereof and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The joint statement of facts in this case show no disagreement on the propriety of the assignment of Miss Stine to fill the temporary vacancy during the time that the regularly assigned employe was occupying a higher rated position. In fact on March 25, 1954 Bulletin No. 9 was issued by the Superintendent of the Eastern Division advertising a temporary vacancy on the Steno-Clerk position in his office, assignment Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays.

On April 7, 1954 the Superintendent issued Supplement No. 1 to Bulletin No. 9 advising all concerned that Miss Nadine Stine was the successful applicant for the temporary vacancy. Miss Stine was an extra or unassigned employe and being the senior applicant was given the position.

This assignment by the Carrier required Miss Stine to fill the position, accepting all of the conditions of the assignment and performing all the duties attached to the position. She worked the assignment from April 7, 1954 to about August 19, 1954 when she was <l:splaced by a senior qualified employe.

During her assignment to this position she worked the workdays preceding and following the Memorial Day and Independence Day holidays, May 31 and July 5, respectively, but she did not work the holidays.

We are now requested to decide: was Miss Nadine Stine entitled to be paid the pro rata daily rate of the position occupied for the two holidays that fell during her assignment.

The Carrier contends that Miss Stine did not become the "regularly assigned employe" as a result of the assignment notice, and that her assignment and that her entitlement was secondary subordinate to the one possessed by Mrs. Mayfield and her occupancy of the position could have been terminated at any time by the return of the regularly assigned employe, Mrs. Mayfield.

The vacancy was for an indefinite duration and that is the reason for its being bulletined. Both Mrs. Mayfield and Miss Stine were required to fulfill all of the conditions of their assignments and no other employe was entitled to work the positions during the period of their assignments. Although it is true that when Mrs. Mayfield completed her assignment she would be entitled to return to her steno-clerk position and Miss Stine would again become an extra or unassigned employe, nevertheless while they are assigned to a regularly established position, they become the regularly assigned employe on that position for the period of time that they occupy their new assignments.

Under Rule 21 (c), Miss Stine was returned from the extra list, to fill the vacancy in the Steno-Clerk position, therefore she was no longer on the extra list and she gives up her rights to extra work or other vacancies during the time of her assignment to Mrs. Mayfield's position and for all intents she becomes the regularly assigned Steno-Clerk. Mrs. Mayfield becomes the regularly assigned employe of the higher rated position and until she completes her assignment in that position she has no rights in the StenoClerk position because she has vacated same.

We must give consideration to all of the rules in the agreement before we decide what constitutes a regular assigned employe and a regular position. Under rule 21 (a) the Carrier has the right to abolish "regular positions" by giving notices as required. So technically speaking it might be stated that any Group 1 or Group 2 position may be abolished, if the Carrier should find it necessary, and this Board has upheld this right as a prerogative of the Carrier.

In this situation there was a "position" that was necessary for the proper operation of the Carrier's business and he asked that it be filled by his bulletin. Carrier's contention is true that Mrs. Mayfield could have terminated claimant's entitlement to the steno-clerk position but she did not choose to do so and Nadine Stine worked the assignment from April 7, 1954 to about August 19, 1954, when she was displaced by a senior qualified employe.

We agree with Carrier's contention that there can be only one regularly assigned employe. We also contend that under Section 1, Article II, 40-Hour Week, that "The expressions 'positions' and 'work' used in this Article II refer to service, duties or operations necessary to be performed the specific number of days per week and not to the work week of individual employes." So when an employe takes a higher rated position thereby causing a vacancy in her position she becomes the regularly assigned employe in her new assign-

ment and the person filling her vacancy becomes the regularly assigned employe in her new assignment and the person filling her vacancy becomes the regularly assigned employe as this article clearly intended.

Carrier cites Award 7432. In this case claimant Griffin was filling a vacation assignment up to the day prior to Washington's Birthday, then worked a different assignment on the day fo!lowing Washington's Birthday.

The other claimant in Award 7432 worked a short vacancy for nine days because of illness of regular employe. Further, this award deals with a situation where according to agreement with the General Chairman the number of positions on each extra list is designated and these positions are then bulletined and assigned in the same manner as regular positions even though they may be for a few days. Our recent award, No. 8901, was a similar case where the claimant was only protecting extra work.

Carrier also refers to Award 8324 and argues that inasmuch as we sustained the Organization's position in this award, we must deny their claim here as it would reverse what we sustained in Award 8324. A careful review of the Board's opinion in Award 8324 reveals that in that case the Board stated: "* * * The applicable regulation is 2-B-2, which reads:

`* * * the seniority of an employe * * * shall date from the first day on which he was regularly assigned to a Group 1 position

We find no seniority question contained in this situation and to go further we find that in Award 8324 the Carrier maintained that "regularly assigned means assigned by bulletining the vacancy, whether the vacancy be temporary or permanent." Carrier's present contention is a complete contradiction to his contention in Award 8324. We do not find any applicability of Award 8324 in our present case.

In consideration of the facts in this case we find that Carrier had a "position" to be filled and did appoint Nadine Stine to this vacancy which she occupied for several months, performing all of the work, service and duties required on this position, and did relinquish all of her rights as an extra or unassigned employe when she accepted the steno-clerk position thereby becoming the regularly assigned occupant of this steno-clerk position. Therefore, we must find that she is entitled to the holiday benefits of the steno-clerk position.

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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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 claimant be paid the pro rata daily rate of the position occupied, $14.67, for each holiday date May 31 and July 5, 1954.

AWARD