When Mr. White was filling in on vacation vacancy of Foreman Jensen, the Carrier did not deem it necessary to have any work performed on the rest days of the above three positions and no employe, therefore, worked such rest days.

The employes contend, nevertheless, that the Carrier cannot blank rest day relief positions even though the Carrier does not require work to be performed on the rest days of regular employes which are in the cycle of the rest day relief employe.

There is no rule in the agreement providing that the Carrier must establish or maintain rest day relief positions. It is only where the Carrier desires to have work performed on rest' days of regular assigned positions, and if there are sufficient such days on which work is to be performed, that a rest day relief position is necessary. In the instant case, no work was required or performed on the rest days involved and, hence, no requirement for a rest day relief position to be maintained.

As a matter of fact, Rule 17, Section 2 (e), mentions that relief assignments are "established to do the work necessary on rest days . . . ." (Emphasis ours.) In this case, there was no work considered necessary by the Carrier to be performed on the rest days of the regular assignments and none was performed on such rest days during period involved.

This and other Divisions of the Adjustment Board have ruled that there is no obligation on the part of the Carrier to establish or maintain rest day relief positions under circumstances herein involved.

We submit on the basis of the facts and evidence in this docket the Carrier did not violate the agreement and claim should be denied.

It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance, known to the Organization's representatives and by this reference is made a part hereof.

OPINION OF BOARD: The theory of Petitioner's case is that by implication the Agreement estops Carrier from blanking a relief position, of a seven-day position, during a period of time when the regular position continues to be worked five days a week.

The facts are that the employe regularly assigned to the relief position was assigned to fill the position of a vacationing foreman for three weeks. During that period the relief position was blanked.

The essence of Petitioner's argument is that if the regular position of a seven-day position is worked the Agreement, by implication, requires that the relief position be filled on the sixth and seventh day.

Carrier denied the claim, giving as reasons: (1) no provision of the Agreement circumscribes Carrier's management prerogative to blank the relief position; (2) Carrier in the exercise of its judgment found it unnecessary to have the relief position worked; and (3) the work of the relief position was not assigned to or performed by any employe during the period the relief position was blanked.

Petitioner cites the Forty-Hour Week (Rule 17, Section 2), Rule 39 (Reduction in Force), Rule 56 (New Positions and Vacancies-Bulletining)

and Rule 57 (Bulletins-Issuing Of). It asserts that these rules, read together, by necessary implication, imposed an obligation upon the Carrier to fill the relief position. In addition, Petitioner argues that the latitude of work week assignments of seven-day positions, in contrast with five-day positions, is consideration for a concomitant obligation to fill the position seven days a week. In support it points to the following dicta in our Award No. 5589:

"However, where there is repeated blanking of the position, a serious reflection is cast upon the bona fide nature of the six and sevenday position designation even though the blanking may result from the occupant's failure to report for duty. In a proper case repeated blankings of such positions might afford a basis for a claim of violation of the Agreement on the ground that such conduct is evidentiary of the fact that the positions are not in reality six or sevenday positions, but in fact five and six-day positions."

There is no provision in the Forty-Hour Week Agreement which upholds Petitioner's contentions. Award No. 5589.

The Rules cited by Petitioner cannot, except by interpolating, be construed as imposing an absolute obligation upon Carrier not to blank a relief position of a seven-day position. "It is not the function of this Board to write rules for the parties." Award No. 5589.

The dicta from Award No. 5589 quoted, supra, visualizes a claim for treating what in fact is a five-day position as a seven-day position. It has no application here.

We will deny the claim.

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD