his absence on February 2 and that he received the letter of January 14, 1957, above quoted. When he was asked why he failed to protect his assignment on Saturday, February 2nd, he replied: "I am an extra employe covered by Extra List Agreement No. 2 at 11th Street Freight Station, and it is my opinion, since I am not guaranteed any employment, I am not required to report at my own expense."
The Organization contends that extra employes are not required to report "with any regularity or on special days." The requirement to report is voluntary and not mandatory. In support of its position, the Organization cites Rule 5-C-1 which says:
The Organization also cites the following Sections of Extra List Agreement No. 2 which, it argues, is applicable in this case:
"Availability", the Organization argues, "is recognized only if they report for work." Since reporting for such work is voluntary, the only penalty to which Claimant was subject was under Section 8 which would move him "to the foot of the extra list." The notice placed on the bulletin .board and mailed to Claimant "would impose upon Claimant and all other -extra employes who had not worked 40 hours in any week, the responsibility of reporting for work on Saturday in every such week, without any assurance that they would be permitted to work that day. The Agreement does not guarantee work to employes on the Extra List.
The Carrier argues that it has the right to order extra employes to report for work and the failure to so report without good and sufficient cause permits the Carrier to discipline the employe.
The purpose for the existence of extra employes is to permit the Carrier to fill emergency vacancies and to provide for extra services. Extra employes who are on the Extra List are employes not assigned to regular positions. The number of employes on such Extra List are agreed to by the parties. As such they are governed by the Rules of the Master Agreement as well as by the terms of the Extra List Agreement. 11047- 3 24
There would be no purpose for having an Extra List if extra employes: were not required to report when directed to do so. If all extra employes voluntarily refused to report without a good and sufficient excuse, Carrier's operations would be materially affected. It is conceivable that under such circumstances the Carrier would not be able to operate some of its facilities resulting in a great loss to Carrier, its passengers and to, its freight customers. In Award 5189 (Boyd) we said:
"When the relationship of employer and employe is created, the employer (Carrier) may assume that, subject to all of the terms of the Agreement governing the employment, the employe will keep himself ready, able and willing to perform the duties of his employment. By reason of the nature of the work of the Carrier, this obligation on the part of the employe is of particular importance. This is so even where the employe is holding a position as an extra. The Carrier has the right to assume that an extra employe will not wilfully or capriciously refrain from responding to a call; and if a Carrier has reason to believe, after a fair hearing, that an extra employe failed, without just cause to be available to receive and respond to a call to service, it may subject such employe to discipline."
Claimant was specifically instructed to report for work on Saturdays, if he did not work forty hours in any week. He was notified by letter of previous absences and told "if he again failed to protect his assignment that disciplinary action will be taken." He had no valid and sufficient excuse for not reporting. His defense is that he was an extra employe and that, in his opinion, he was not required to report at his own expense. At the hearing held on March 18, 1957 he was asked what the Carrier can expect from him in the future. He replied: "for convenience, and if possible, I intend to call in and report off if I am unable to come to work on Saturdays."
We cannot agree with the Organization's position that the only penalty for failure of the Claimant to report on Saturday, February 2nd, was to place him at the foot of the extra list. Neither can we agree with the Organization's position that the Claimant had no obligation to report for work as directed. When the notice was posted there was a direct request and direction for the employe to report. It no longer became a voluntary, discretionary decision with the employe. We do not think that this is inconsistent with the Rules of the Master Agreement or with the terms of Extra List Agreement No. 2. The Sections in the Extra List Agreement cited by the Organization, which are quoted in this Opinion, do not relieve the Claimant from reporting for work when he is directed to do so unless he has a good and sufficient reason for not reporting. There is no evidence in the record that the Carrier's order for such extra employes to report on Saturday was arbitrary, capricious or done with any malicious intent.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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; 11047-4 25