The Carrier is at a loss to know how the Brotherhood could legitimately raise any issue in this case which has not already been adjudicated against the Brotherhood under the same agreement on the same property, in Docket CL-7401, by Award 7191, which included these findings:

"It would seem therefore that the outsiders involved indirectly in this claim acquired an employe status under Rule 3 (a). They never attained seniority under Rule 3 (b). They attained a right to perform extra and/or relief work where employed in the order of their employment date when regular employes with established seniority were not available to perform it under Rule 3 (c). This latter provision clearly means that if regular employes with established seniority were not able to perform it at straight time, and there were no extra or furloughed employes with established seniority available, these outsiders with employe status rights were entitled to perform it before the Carrier is required to use such employes with established seniority at the overtime rate. This conclusion is based on the rules as mutually interpreted and applied on this property, and constitutes a controlling precedent under similar rules when accompanied by similar mutual interpretations, conduct and practice on the property which support the estoppel theory underlying the confronting case."

Therefore, the Carrier respectfully requests that the Board dismiss this case, or deny the claim.

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 representative thereof and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioners claim that Claimant Baber should have been called to perform extra work on an overtime basis in preference to using extra or unassigned employes at the pro rata rate. The extra employes used, i.e., Mrs. Everett and Mrs. Jernigan, had an established "employe status" under Rule 3 (a) prior to date of claim.

It appears that it was proper to use Mrs. Everett and Mrs. Jernigan under such circumstances. This is the conclusion reached by the Board in Award 7191 covering a dispute between the same parties and involving an identical issue. That Award is controlling here. Accordingly, claim will be denied.

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 Agreement was not violated.

AWARD