as Carrier's Exhibits 2-A through 2-E. That correspondence shows that the accepted principle on this property in connection with the changing of the rest days on a particular assignment is this: Effort is to be made to keep the regular occupant from losing days, rather than from gaining days; because he is hurt when he loses days but is not hurt when he gains days. If the change causes him to gain a day or two, he does not receive any penalty pay; but, if the change causes him to fail to get five days pay in a calendar week, he is compensated under the guarantee rule. To the extent that Awards on the subject of changing rest days on a particular assignment have a bearing on the present question, that agreed principle on this property should be substituted for those Awards as influencing the decision of the present question.

That principle, too, denies all the claims in this case; because Mr. Long was handled in line with that principle. Indeed, as already observed, it was our understanding that the basic dispute in this case, which was discussed again in connection with those cases involving the change of rest days, was adjusted by the agreement on that principle and we were suprised when this case was subsequently referred to your Board. However, we see now that the Brotherhood does not accept that agreed principle as applying to the change of rest days which occurs when a man moves from one assignment to another, but accepts it only as applying to a change of rest days and work weeks on one particular assignment; and we shall be guided accordingly in the future.

Accordingly, this case presents for decision the question whether it was proper to allow Mr. Long to return to his regular assignment as soon as he was no longer needed on the vacation relief assignment. We think it was, because he wanted to. In any event, it would not be proper to sustain any claim for money for November 22 and 23, because, under the Brotherhood's theory, he has already been allowed to earn and collect too much.

The Carrier respectfully requests that all claims in this docket be denied.

All known relevant argumentative facts and documentary evidence are included herein. All data 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: On Saturday November 17, 1956, Assistant Chief Clerk T-2255 B. O. Alsobrook at Fort Worth, Texas began his annual vacation. His position's assigned work week was Saturday through Wednesday, and his assigned rest days were Thursday and Friday; there was a regular relief assignment, which, on Thursdays and Fridays, was assigned to cover the same work.

Claimant, E. P. Long, then holding a position of East Wheel Clerk T-249, was called and assigned to Mr. B. O. Alsobrook's position, T-2255, as his relief. Long's assignment as East Wheel Clerk, had assigned hours 4:00 P. M. to 12:00 midnight; daily Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. He worked his regular assignment during the week of Monday, November 12, 1956 through Friday November 16, 1956, and continued then on Assistant Chief Clerk's position beginning Saturday November 17, 1956 and ending Wednesday, November 21, 1956. Mr. Long returned to his own assignment on November 22 and worked the two days thereof on November 22 and November 23, 1956, the latter being Thanksgiving Day, a holiday.

This claim was filed and has been processed by Organization for payment to claimant Long the difference between pro rata rate and punitive rate of pay of position of Assistant Chief Clerk and it has been considered as a claim for punitive rate of pay for Saturday and Sunday November 17 and 18. 1956, his regularly assigned rest days and for Thursday and Friday, November 22 and 23, 1956, the rest days of the Assistant Chief Clerk's position T-2255.

It is the claim of Organization that Carrier violated Rule 26s/z, Work Week and Rule 30 of the Agreement in that Mr. Long was not allowed to observe his rest days which he had earned during the preceding five days which he had worked at his own position.

Carrier contends that the claim should be denied by reason of the exception contained in Rules 30(b) and (c). Those rules with Rule 30(a) provide for payment at the rate of time and one-half for "work in excess of 40 straight time hours in any work week" and for work on the sixth and seventh days of their work week, except where such work is performed by an employe due to moving from one assignment to another". Carrier argues that Claimant moved from one assignment to another within the meaning of that exception, and that in doing so, he took all the conditions of that assignment, including rest days thereof.

Rule 26%z(a) of the Agreement establishes a work week of 40 hours, consisting of five days of eight hours each, with two consecutive days off in each seven. Rule 26%z contains a note at its beginning as follows: "The expressions 'position' and work used in this rule refer to service, duties, or operations necessary to be performed the specified number of days per week, and not to the work week of individual employes". The term "work week" for regularly assigned employes is defined in Rule 261/z(i) to "mean a week beginning on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work".

The filling of this vacation assignment was not a displacement of the occupant of the position by a successful bid; the assignment of claimant Long was not due to his absolute seniority compelling his assignment to the higher position on penalty for not so doing: in fact Carrier, in its submission, has admitted there were other persons on the seniority roster, senior to Claimant. Article 12(b) of the Vacation Agreement removes the vacation absence from the mandatory operations of strict seniority rules: "regular relief employe may be utilized regardless of seniority, and, if such employe is not utilized, effort will be made to observe seniority".

Claimant Long filled the vacation assignment after he had earned the rest days of his regular position by working as East Wheel Clerk T-249 the five days of that work week. That stems from Rule 26%z(a) where the parties established a work week of five days of work, of eight hours each "with two consecutive days off in each seven". The rest days which followed the five days of work of eight hours each were an "integral part" of the work week of the East Wheel Clerk T-249 position Award 6561. Claimant Long could not carry the rest days with him when he filled the vacation absence. They remained as earned rest days of his regular position. He did not move to relieve the Assistant Chief Clerk until after his rest days were earned. When he relieved the vacationing Assistant Chief Clerk on those earned rest days, the appropriate provisions of the service on rest days became applicable to those days which were November 17 and November 18. We find nothing in the Agreement to suggest that, under the circumstances of this claim, the parties intended, by the exception to the overtime provi-

sions contained in Rules 30(b) and (c), to repeal the principles which they established by Rules 263¢ (a) and 30(e). There is no basis in the record for any assumption that claimant Long relinquished the earned rest days of the work week of his regular position. Awards 6973-9487.

Claims for November 22 and 23, 1956 are not supported by the Agreement rules and are 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 Employee 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 violated.

AWARD