Carrier contends that this claim is not supported by the rules and respectfully requests that it be denied by the Board.

All data submitted in support of the Carrier's position has been presented to the Committee and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

OPINION OF THE BOARD: The Bill Clerk-Checker in Carrier's Minneapolis Local Freight Office, with assigned hours 2:00 to 10:00 P. M., Monday through Friday, was absent on vacation December 17 through 21, 1957. According to Carrier, the work load of the position was exceptionally light at the time and it decided to blank the position from 2:00 to 5:00 P. M. but to fill it after 5:00 P. M. by utilizing clerks from the same office on an overtime basis. The work during the former hours, largely messenger work, was performed by a messenger employe. The work normally assigned after 5:00 P. M. was performed on alternate days, on an overtime basis outside of their regular assigned hours, by an Assistant O.S.D. Clerk and a Warehouse Clerk, both of whom had regular assigned hours 8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M., Monday through Friday, and had requested any extra or overtime work in the office. Claimant made no request for the vacancy during the period in question; and it was only after Carrier had the work perforated as it did that this claim was filed.

Employes contended that Claimant, a Crew Caller with regular assigned hours 12:01 to 8:01 A. M., Tuesday through Saturday, should have performed the work of the vacationing employe as the "senior available qualified employe."

Before the Board, Employes asserted that more than 2517, of the work load of the vacationing employe was distributed among other employes, in violation of Article 10(b) of the National Vacation Agreement dated December 17, 1941, adopted by the parties by Rule 69 of the Agreement between them effective August 1, 1955; and that Claimant should have received the work, pursuant to Article 12(b) of the National Vacation Agreement.

The relevant provisions of the National Vacation Agreement were as follows:

"10.(b) Where work of vacationing employes is distributed among two or more employes, such employes will be paid their own respective rates. However, not more than the equivalent of twenty-five per cent of the work load of a given vacationing employe can be distributed among fellow employes without the hiring of a relief worker unless a larger distribution of the work load is agreed to by the proper local union committee or official.

"12.(b) As employes exercising their vacation privileges will be compensated under this agreement during their absence on vacation, retaining their other rights as if they had remained at work, such absences from duty will not constitute `vacancies' in their positions under any agreement. When the position of a vacationing employe is to be filled and regular relief employe is not utlilized, effort will be made to observe the principle of seniority."

Carrier maintained that the use of the two Clerks in the manner stated satisfied the relief worker provisions of Article 10(b), and further that since both were senior to Claimant the seniority provision of Article 12(b) had been observed.

In the opinion of the Board, the circumstances of the matter required the Carrier to provide a relief worker pursuant to Article 10(b). The record did

not precisely and quantitatively indicate the equivalent percentage of the vacationing employe's work load distributed among fellow employes nor the amount of time the latter spent in performing his work, other than Carrier's statement at one point that there resulted a 13-hour day for the two Clerks on alternate days. However, Carrier's final disposition of the matter on the property in terms stated that the two Clerks "alternated in performing the bill checker's duties on an overtime basis outside of their regular assigned hours" (emphasis ours), and maintained that this "satisfies the relief worker provisions of Article 10(b)"-without claiming that 25% or less was involved.

This, absent a denial of Employes' most recent previous assertion on the property that far in excess of 25% of the work on the job was necessary, indicates the validity of the latter assertion.

Thus, it was necessary to furnish a relief worker, and the ultimate question presented here was who the relief worker should have been, as between Claimant and the two Clerks. Article 12(b) required that, in the absence of utilization of a regular relief employe, "effort will be made to observe the principle of seniority." Without contractual implementation of the meaning of the latter caveat, the Board believes that it has not been demonstrated that Carrier violated Article 12(b) in assigning the work to the two Clerks, each senior to Claimant, for performance alternately at times outside of their regular assigned hours, rather than to Claimant. Thus, each day an employe senior to Claimant was used. In a technical sense, Carrier may be said to have "distributed" the work among a messenger on the one hand and two Clerks on the other, instead of hiring one relief worker; but the claim presented here was that of Claimant, and no question was raised as between the two Clerks themselves, or between them and the messenger, nor as to their qualification to do the work.

Employes also asserted that the two Clerks were required to suspend operation on their own assignments prior to 5:00 P. M. on the days they relieved the vacationing employe, in violation of Rule 53 of the Agreement between the parties. The record does not sustain the assertion.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 claim is without merit.

AWARD