days, viz., steno-clerk work on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, said action on the part of the Carrier was entirely proper and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27 (e).

Insofar as the abolishment of Steno-Clerk Position No. 10 is concerned, there is no schedule rule or agreement which precludes the abolishment of a position when a diminution in the volume of work no longer justifies its retention and the assignment of the remaining duties to another position, therefore, no violation occurred when, as a result of a diminution in the volume of work, the Carrier abolished Steno-Clerk Position No. 10 and assigned the remaining duties to the relief position described in the preceding paragraph.

Insofar as the conversion of General Clerk Position No. 26 from a 5-day position to a 6-day position is concerned, there is no schedule rule or agreement which prohibits same, therefore, no violation occurred when, on or about July 30, 1960, the Carrier changed General Clerk Position No. 26 from a 5-day position to a 6-day position and assigned it from Monday through Saturday with relief provided on Monday.

The Carrier wishes to direct attention to Third Division Award 6979 which is directly in point and supports the Carrier's position in its entirety.

There has been no violation of the rules.

The Carrier respectfully requests that the instant claim be denied-

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Both General Clerk Position No. 26 and StenoClerk Position No. 10 were 5-day positions, Monday through Friday. On July 14, 1960, Carrier bulletined a change in Position No. 26 to Test days of Sunday and Monday. At the same time Position No. 10 was changed the Relief Clerk and Steno working Position No. 10 Tuesdays through Friday and Position No. 26 on Mondays. The Organization objects because Carrier has combined a regular and a relief position in violation of the Agreement.

The Organization relies on Award 5330 which held that the assignment of Claimant to one day of relief was improper because the position worked by Claimant four days a week was a five-day position and that Agreement did not contemplate such an assignment as a "regular relief assignment"

Award 5330, however, is distinguishable from the facts here. In our case Position No. 10 became a 4-day position with no duties on Monday. It did not remain a 5-day position as in Award 5330. As such it was less than a full time position and falls within the purview of Rule 27 (e) which states:

Assignments for regular relief positions may on different days include different starting times, duties and work locations for employes of the same class in the same seniority district, provided they take the starting time, duties and work locations of the employe or employes whom they are relieving."

There is no prohibition in the Agreement against the Carrier establishing a one-day relief assignment and then adding to it, as other work, a four-day assignment to complete a five-day position. We think this case falls within the principle established by Award 6969 and followed in Awards 7039 and 11088 and that principle is controlling here.

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 Agreement was not violated.

AWARD