definition of that word used in Rule 9, Section 1(e) fifth paragraph of the Telegraphers' Agreement, as to its permissive or discretionary character, is likewise applicable to its use in Article 1, Section 1(b), second paragraph, of the Mediation Agreement of July 13, 1945, Case A-2070.

As a matter of fact, Article 1, Section 1(i) of the Mediation Agreement of July 13, 1945, Case A-2070, reading:

"(i) While it is the intent of this agreement that, where practicable, employes will be relieved on their rest days, it is understood that an employe can be required to work on his rest day, subject to the rules herein set forth with respect to pay for work performed on such rest day."

likewise contemplates that an employe, such as Mr. Hovey, can be required to work on his rest day subject to the rules with respect to pay for work performed on such rest day.

The position of the carrier is also supported by Rule 9, Section 2(d) of the Telegraphers' Agreement, effective September 1, 1955, which reads as follows:

"(d) -Work on Unassigned Days-

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 forty (40) hours of work that week; in all other cases by the regular employe." (Emphasis ours.)

With regard to that rule, it is the position of the carrier that by the use of the permissive or discretionary word "may" as contained therein, the carrier could have used the claimant, an extra employe, to perform work on the unassigned rest days of the position of Third Trick Telegrapher at Boat Landing, Frankfort, Michigan; but that it was not mandatory that she be used; and that in the event she was not so used it was necessary to use the regular employe, Mr. Hovey. As Mr. Hovey was used, that rule was complied with.

The Agreement between The Am Arbor Railroad Company and its em. ployes represented by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers contains no rules which makes it mandatory for the carrier to use the claimant, an extra employe, under circumstances such as are herein involved, and the claims as set up in the Employes ex parte Statement of Claim should, therefore, be denied.

The carrier affirmatively states that the substance of all matters referred to herein has been made the subject of correspondence or discussion in conference between the representatives of the parties hereto and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: W. R. Hovey was the regularly assigned incumbent of the third shift position at Boat Landing. The tour of duty was Friday through Tuesday with Wednesday and Thursday as rest days. The position was a seven day position.

The Claimant was the senior idle extra telegrapher and at the time involved in this ease was available to perform the work.

It was agreed to by the parties that W. R. Hovey the incumbent of the third shift assignment would accumulate Thursday rest days for a period of five weeks and then take them in consecutive rest days. The Wednesday rest day was covered by relief assignment, The accumulated rest days involved were due January 19 through January 23rd.

W. R. Hovey worked through this period and was paid at the rate of time and one-half.

Claim was tiled that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to use the extra senior telegrapher to fill the six-day accumulated rest days of the regular incumbent but instead required him to work this period.

The Organization takes the position that work on rest days should as a matter of contractual right be performed by Employes in the following order: First by the regular relief Employe if any; second by an extra Employe and third if none available by the regular occupant of the position on an overtime basis.

The Carrier maintains that there is no rule in the Agreement which requires it to use an extra Employe in lieu of the regular assigned occupant to fill the position during the period involved in this case.

We have carefully studied the rules of the Agreement and we can find no provision which in our opinion would require that the Carrier use an extra Employe on unassigned days instead of the regular incumbent of the position.

There are two specific provisions in the Agreement that apply to the issue before us.

Rule 9, Section 2(d) provides as follows;

"Where %vork 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."

Rule 9, Section 2(b) VI provides as follows:

"While it is the intent of this rule that where practical, employes will be relieved on their rest days, it is understood that an employe may be required to work on his rest days subject to the provision herein set forth with respect to pay for work performed on such rest days."

Where a provision of an Agreement is specific in content it will prevail over rules general in nature,

It is our opinion that the above rules specifically give an option to the Carrier to use the regular incumbent of a position on unassigned days.

In the case before us the regular incumbent worked on his rest days and was paid at the prescribed overtime rate in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Therefore, the claim is denied.

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary