In that case the Brotherhood conceded from the beginning that we did not have to call both men, on the holiday, and argued merely that we called the wrong one. But in the present case, the Brotherhood contends that Young and the claimant should both have been required to come on the holiday, Young to do some things and Kelly to remake this lost switch list, when the undisputed evidence shows that there was not enough work to keep two men busy for the guaranteed time, and no need for but one man. This is not a claim that we called the wrong man, but that we used the wrong man for a particular detail of service, and that we should have called two men, on this holiday.

This contention is in conflict with Mr. Harrison's testimony under oath, with the findings of Emergency Board 106, with the Awards of this Board, and with the accepted and established practice on the property. This claim is not only without support; as a claim it is without precedent, so far as we know, and is entirely unconscionable. It should by all means, be summarily denied. The Carrier does not request a hearing.

All known relevant argumentative facts and documentary evidence are included herein. All data submitted in support of Carrier's position has been presented to the employes or duly authorized representatives thereof and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts concerning this claim are not substantially disputed. Claimant was regularly assigned to Yard Clerk position T-2389, West City Yard, Fort Worth, Texas, hours 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday. W. L. Young, a regular relief yard clerk, occupied Posittion No. 6, East City Yard and Lancaster Sub-Yard, also at Fort Worth, assigned hours 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M., Friday through Tuesday, rest days Wednesday and Thursday. These positions and their occupants were covered by the Agreement. Both positions were assigned in the same seniority district and the occupants were listed on the same seniority roster.

Labor Day, September 5, 1955, fell on a regular work day of both Claimant's and Young's regular work week assignments. Carrier blanked Claimant's position and worked Young's position on that holiday. About 11:00 A. M. that day, it was discovered that the switching list prepared by the third trick Yard Clerk was missing. Young was directed to prepare such list for use at the West City Yard. This work was ordinarily performed by the Claimant during his regular work week.

Petitioner contends that the preparation of the switching list by Young for use at the West City Yard on the holiday mentioned violated Rule 30 (f) of the Agreement which states that:

"Where work is required by the carrier to be performed on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise not have 40 hours of work that week; in all other cases by the regular employe assigned that class of work."

We are not persuaded that, on the facts, this Rule supports the claim. The Rule specifies the condition that the required work occur "on a day which is not a part of any assignment" and permits the performance of the work "by the regular employe assigned that class of work". The record establishes that the preparation of the switching list was done on a holiday which was a

part of Young's assignment and within the hours thereof, and that such work was within the class of work assigned to him as a regular employe. Neither the agreement nor the fact that this work was ordinarily performed by the Claimant during his regular work week demonstrate that it belonged exclusively to him. See Awards 5922, 6077, 7954. The record does not suggest that Claimant's position was blanked on the holiday so that Young could prepare the switching list. Under these circumstances, the Rule does not substantiate the claim. See Awards 7137, 8003, 8198, 8872.

The difference in the yards and their geographical separation at the same location are alone insufficient to alter the result. The work was in the same class and craft. The positions and their occupants were in the same seniority district and the occupants were on the same seniority roster. See Awards 8003, 8198, 8278.

The determination here is consistent with Decision No. 2 of the FortyHour Week Committee which includes the statement that "Wherever the words `the regular employe' are used in this paragraph, they shall mean the regular employe entitled to the work under the existing agreement". As we have observed, Rule 30 (f) permits the work referred to therein to be performed "by the regular employe assigned that class of work".

Awards 5388, 5465, 5837, 5972, 6306, 7089, 7134, 8344 and 8563, cited in support of the claim, are not applicable. In those cases, the Work On Unassigned Days rules did not contain the phrase "assigned that class of work" after the words "the regular employe". These Awards are also inapplicable for additional reasons. But to state those reasons would only protract this opinion unnecessarily.

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 Agreement was not violated.

AWARD