under a practice of rotating such work. Claim was based on claimant being the senior of three inspectors. It was held that the rule relating to work on unassigned days applied, and that while the rule provided for use of regular employe, it did not provide for using the senior regular employe, and that such rule did not supersede a practice of rotating time work among the regular employes.

Award 22, Special Board of Adjustment No. 170, E. M. Sharpe, Chairman,

denied claim of four yard clerks account assignments not worked on a holiday-the only force worked being Chief Yard Clerk and a Yard Clerk on each shift. The Board found that the work in yard office was interchangeable and was performed regularly or frequently by any of the clerks and held:

"Under Rule 43 the Carrier may reduce an employe's work days where a holiday occurs within an employe's work week. We are of the opinion that the Carrier was within its rights in reducing the labor force on the day in question."

The facts show that the claim is not supported by the rules, and the Carrier respectfully submits that the claim should be denied.

All data herein has been handled with representatives of the Employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION Oh' BOARD: Claimant, Assistant Cashier at Jonesboro freight station of the Carrier, filled his own regularly assigned position Tuesdays through Fridays, and that of Cashier on Mondays when he received the Cashier's rate of pay. The Cashier's days of work were Tuesday through Saturdays.

Claimant was ordered not to report for work on Tuesday, February 22, 1956, a specified holiday. Petitioner asserted that on that day the Cashier performed certain duties assigned to and performed by Claimant as a part of the latter's regular assigned duties, and that he consumed 4s/2 hours in so doing. Petitioner maintained that this violated Decision No. 2 of the Forty Hour Week Committee which provided in part:

"Where work is required to be performed on a holiday which is not a part of any assignment the regular employee shall be used."

Carrier maintained that on the day in question only one of the two employes was required; and that the disputed work regularly was performed by either of them and was not exclusively that of the Assistant Cashier. Carrier maintained further that Decision No. 2, pertaining in fact to the question as to when extra, unassigned, or furloughed employes might be used instead of the regular employe, was not relevant, and that it clearly had the right not to use the Assistant Cashier on the holiday, under Rule 35-2 of the Agreement between the parties, as follows:

"35.2. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to permit the reduction of working days of regularly assigned employes below six (6) per week, except this number may be reduced in a week in which one of the seven holidays specified in Rule 33 occurs, to the extent of such holiday."

The duties here in question were listed by Petitioner as follows: breaking down the figuring divisions on SINT Freight Bills covering freight transferred

to the Frisco Transportation Company and Bradsher Truck Lines; writing up SWT Accounting Forms 260, 261 and 267; writing up Cotton Belt Cash Book and balancing cash; lining up SWT Manifest Form 225; checking in money and bills from the SWT Truck Drivers; and making up statement of freight bills due-from the General Electric Company, Jonesboro, Arkansas.

The record, including brief descriptions of the duties for the two positions prepared in 1946, clearly exhibits that their work overlapped and was interchangeable; and that the Cashier performed all necessary work alone on Saturdays and the Assistant Cashier did likewise on Mondays. The record does not support the assertion that the disputed work performed on February 22, 1956 belonged exclusively to the Assistant Cashier, nor does it appear that the Cashier was in need of assistance on that day.

The Board concludes that Claimant was not entitled to preference as "the regular employee" on the date in question, that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement by ordering him not to report for work that day, and that the claim must 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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD