work, clearly supports the use of the chief clerk on the basis that the preponderance of the work which he performs on Saturday represents duties which he is regularly assigned to perform Monday through Friday.

The Carrier respectfully requests that the claim be denied.

All data contained herein has been presented to the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to April 5, 1954 the clerical force at the Carrier's freight office at Appleton, Wisconsin, had the following three positions:

Chief Clerk Position No. 183 Monday through Friday

General Clerk Position No. 701 Monday through Friday

Car Clerk Position No. 169 Tuesday through Saturday

On April 5, 1954 the position of General Clerk was abolished and its remaining duties were assigned to the Chief Clerk and the Car Clerk, except that some of the work of abstracting, which had been performed by the clerks, was assigned to the Operator, an employe not covered by the parties' Agreement. At the same time, the employe who had been assigned to the position of General Clerk, exercised his seniority to bid in on the position of Car Clerk and the work of that position was changed to Monday through Friday.

The parties were able to reach agreement on the property with regard to that part of the claim which dealt with the abstracting work by the Operator. The Carrier made payment to the Chief Clerk and the Car Clerk according to the agreement and this work has been returned to the Clerks.

However, a limited amount of clerical work was still required to be performed on Saturdays. And the Chief Clerk continued to receive calls on Saturdays to do such work. The claim now remaining is for two hours' compensation for each Saturday since April 10, 1954 for work performed by the Chief Clerk Claimant contends that the work which is performed on Saturdays constitutes work on an unassigned day of his position and that since there were no extra or unassigned employes available, he was entitled to receive the call in accordance with Rule 28.

"Rule 28-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."

The question to be determined is one of fact. Was Claimant P. J. Nabbefeld "the regular employe" and entitled to the work in dispute, or was the work not exclusively assigned to him and was thereby indistinguishable from that performed by the Chief Clerk, who was the senior employee?

It is admitted that Chief Clerk Schramm continued to receive a call on Saturday for the performance of the work then assigned to and associated with his position as Chief Clerk. When the unassigned day Rule (No. 28) is read in conjunction with Rule 32 (f) and (g) we find that the Chief Clerk,

being the senior and higher rated of the two employes may rightfully lay claim to this Saturday work if a preponderance of it normally belongs to him.

"(f) In working overtime before or after assigned hours or on one of the seven (7) holidays specified in Rule 35 (b), (if such holiday falls within the employe's work week) the employe regularly assigned to position on which overtime is required will be utilized. It is understood that the word "regularly" as contained in this Rule 32 (f) means that the employe who occupies a position either temporarily or permanently at the time overtime work occurs will be used for the overtime work."

(g) When additional help is required for overtime work, or when the duties to be performed on overtime cannot be identified with a specific position, employes will be assigned such overtime in accordance with seniority, fitness and ability, first from the sub-division of the department wherein the work occurs and, secondly, from the entire department."

A breakdown of the duties actually performed by Chief Clerk Schramm on successive Saturdays in February and March 1956 as given in our record clearly indicates that the preponderance of duties performed by this employe on these days is work normally performed by the Chief Clerk. This leaves the remaining claim in this case with little to support it.

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

AWARD