When on Monday, September 6, 1954 (Labor Day) it notified Clerk A. D. Cass, (hereinafter referred to as Claimant Cass) that his assignment would be blanked on that day and required and/or permitted the Chief Clerk at the Howells, Georgia yard office, located a distance of seven miles from the Hurt Street yard, to go to Hurt Street yard and bring the work assigned to and performed by Claimant to Howells yard office where it was performed by Clerks who were working their regular assignments on that day.
When on Thursday, November 25, 1954 (Thanksgiving) Saturday, December 25, 1954 (Christmas), Saturday January 1, 1955, (New Year's) Tuesday, February 22, 1955, (Washington's Birthday) Monday, July 4, 1955 and subsequent holidays the Storekeeper at Hermitage storehouse notified the Clerks under his jurisdiction that they would not be worked on these holidays and Diesel Clerks, Mechanical Department employes under the jurisdiction of the General Foreman and located in the Diesel shop, were required to go into the storehouse and perform the duties assigned to and performed daily by the Clerks in the storehouse and under the jurisdiction of the Storekeeper .
Chairman's letter of April 30, 1951 in connection with the February 22, 1951 claim aforementioned proves this beyond a doubt and which, incidentally, is in conformity with the application of the rule since its adoption. Therefore, we emphatically assert that the agreement has not been violated and the claims must, accordingly, be denied. The burden is upon the petitioner to prove otherwise.
Carrier affirmatively states that all data used herein has been discussed with or is well known to the Organization representative.
OPINION OF BOARD: Under Rule 57(f) and Decision No. 2 of the forty hour Week Committee the work here involved should have been performed by claimants as the regular employes unless permissibly performed by the employes called to perform work on the holidays under the last paragraph of Rule 58 of the Agreement which provides that:
That, being a special rule relating to Sunday and holiday work only, would prevail over the general rule 57(f).
Petitioner contends that the above quoted provision of Rule 58 is an exception to and limitation of the preceding paragraph of that rule, which reads:
A careful reading of the last paragraph of Rule 58 is convincing that it is independent of the preceding paragraph and not restricted thereby.
Petitioner further asserts that the work involved in each instance exceeded one and one-half hours. It argues that the diesel clerks made various trips during the entire eight hours that they were on duty and for that reason the time they were used was not confined to one and one-half hours. But that is not the proper test. Rather it is whether "an employe" was required to perform work regularly assigned to claimants' positions exceeding one and one-half hours. Carrier denies such to be the case and petitioner has failed to overcome the denial.
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