In the handling of this dispute on the property, the Carrier requested the Employes to furnish any evidence they may have to support their position. No proof was ever furnished the Carrier that Article 7 had been applied as they allege it should be in this dispute. The Board has stated in many awards that the burden of proof in support of a claim rests with the asserting parties. See Third Division Awards 7964, 6114, 6359, and 4011. The Employes have failed to assume the required burden in this dispute and their claim must fail.

It is the duty of of this Board to interpret the rules of the agreement as they are made. It is not authorized to read into a rule that which is not contained or by an award add or detract a meaning to the agreement which was clearly not the intention of the parties. (Awards 6365, 5977, 5971., 5864, and 4439, Third Division.)

There is absolutely no merit to the Employes' request that the named Claimants be allowed Held-Away-From-Home-Terminal Time under Article 7 of the agreement as they were not in unassigned service on the claim dates.

The Board has no other alternative than to deny this claim because the agreement does not support the Employes' request.

All data in this submission have been presented to the Employes and made a part of the question in dispute.

OPINION OF BOARD: On December 24, 1958, Carrier advertised for assignment on trains 53 and 52 from Chicago, Illinois, to Jacksonville, Florida and return, positions of chefs, second cooks, third cooks fourth cooks, and waiters. Bids for these assignments were acceptable to and including January 2, 1959.

On December 26, 1958, Carrier assigned Claimants, who were extra board employes, to fill the positions bulletined on December 24th.

Claimants were required to lay-over in Jacksonville, Florida, in excess of 24 hours on December 27, 1958. A claim was filed for compensation under Article 7 of the current Agreement.

Article 7 reads as follows:

"ARTICLE 7.

"Runs to which dining car employes are regularly assigned shall be specified by bulletin. Employes in unassigned service held at points

other than their designated home terminals will be paid for continuous time on the minute basis at the pro rata hourly rate for all time held between the expiration of the sixteenth and twenty-fourth hours after their arrival. If held 16 hours after the expiration of the first 24-hour period, they will be paid on the same basis for the next succeeding eight hours, or until the end of the 24-hour period, and similarly for each 24-hour period thereafter. Should employes in unassigned service be called for road service after pay begins, time shall be computed continuously. The time paid for account required to be on duty at the held away from home terminal point will be deducted from the held away from home terminal time allowed. For the purpose of applying this rule, the Company will designate a home terminal for each employe in unassigned service."

Employes contend that Article 7 should be read with Article 16 which deals with the size of dining car crews and method of job assignment. Particularly applicable are Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Article 16 which read as follows:

"(c) When new runs are created or permanent vacancies occur, the Superintendent Dining Service shall notify employes by posting bulletins. All applications must be made to the Superintendent Dining Service in writing. Assignments cannot be made through other method. An employe not applying for a run or vacancy he is entitled to shall lose his rights to same until it is again vacant, or he loses the run he had at the time he refused said run.

"(d) The change of a home terminal, and/or a change of three hours or more in the scheduled reporting time at the home terminal will permit employes assigned to the run to vacate it for other runs they may be entitled to by their seniority; also, the opening up of such changed run for assignment by regular application upon request of the employes' representative."

Carrier contends that it has long been "recognized that an employe, regular or extra, used to protect an assignment on a bulletined position is considered in an `assigned' service and that Article 7 has never been applied to such an employe."

Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that under Article 16 of the Agreement, a position is "unassigned" until an employe is assigned to a position through the posting of bulletins and written application is made for the position. Since applicants for the positions on trains 53 and 52 had until January 2, 1959 to apply for such vacancies, the positions were "unassigned" at the time Claimants were directed to work on those trains.

Article 7 specifically identifies "assigned" positions as runs to which employes are regularly assigned. When the positions here involved were advertised and bulletined as noted above, they became regular runs insofar as those positions became regular assignments. The reference in Article 7 is not to employes who are regularly "assigned" or who are "unassigned" but rather to "employes in unassigned service." The service between Chicago and Jacksonville on trains 53 and 52 was "assigned service" and in that respect the Claimants may be considered as employes who substituted for regularly assigned employes in that service. They are entitled only to the same rights and benefits as regular employes in that service.

Article 16, particularly paragraphs (c) and (d), which is relied upon by the Petitioner, deals with the problem of creating and filling of permanent vacancies. An assignment of an employe to a created or permanent vacancy can only be done on the basis of the provisions of Article 16 and it's true that such assignments "cannot be made through other method." Again, this deals with assignment of individuals, employes who applied for positions bulletined. Article 7, on the other hand, deals exclusively with the question of service. In other words, there may be an assigned service and no permanent assigned employes to that service because of quits, discharge, illness, vacations, etc.

On May 4, 1959, Carrier's Manager of Personnel wrote to Petitioner's General Chairman, in part, as follows:

"If you have knowledge of any instance or instances where pay ments were or are being made as you now allege they should be, I would appreciate such information. My investigation reveals that it is not and never has been done. It has always been recognized that an employe, regular or extra, used to protect an assigned or bulletined position is considered an `assigned service' and Article 7 has never been applied to such an employe."

Nowhere in the record does Petitioner refute this assertion which was made on the property and the record contains no evidence that the practice has been otherwise than as stated by the Carrier.

The record also shows that, in the handling of this dispute on the property, Carrier requested that Petitioner furnish evidence to support its position. None was so furnished.

Furthermore, Carrier has presented a statement by the General Superintendent of Dining Service supporting its position which reads as follows:

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

"It has always been our practice that any employe, regular or extra, who obtains a position, by bid or assignment, on a bulletined run is considered in assigned service and is paid in accordance with the bulletined time schedule covering that particular run. Under no circumstances have the provisions of Article 7 (Held Away from Home Terminal Pay) been applied to an employe in assigned service. The employes assigned to diner 4100 on the trip in question were working on positions covered by bulletin and must be considered to have been in assigned service."

/s/ N. L. Patterson