to moving from one assignment to another or to or from an extra or furloughed list, or where days off are being accumulated under Section 10-g of Article VI.

Section 1-c. Employes worked more than five days in a work week shall be paid one and one-half times the basic straight time rate for work on the sixth and seventh days of their work weeks, except where such work is performed by an employe due to moving from one assignment to another or to or from an extra or furloughed list, or where days off are being accumulated under Section 10-g of Article VI."

n ~ e + ~

"Section 1-f. Service rendered by employes on their assigned rest days shall be paid for under Section 2 of this Article VII, unless relieving an employe assigned to work on such day, in which case they will be paid the same as such assigned employe would be paid, subject to the provisions of Section 3-a of Article XI, unless the employe working such day shall have rendered service on five previous days in his work week, in which event he shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half."

Inasmuch as the change in work weeks effective Monday, March 7, 1960, occurred on the first day of the new work week, it cannot properly be held that the old work week of Position 5704 which commenced on Tuesday, March 1 1960, extended over into the new work week which commenced on Monday, March 7, or that Mr. Reissig worked in excess of 40 hours or five days in a work week or rendered service on one of the rest days of the position to which he was assigned. March 7, 1960, the date involved in this claim became one of the regular work days of Position 5704 effective that same date, and Mr. Reissig assumed the work week, assigned rest days, etc., of Position 5704 both before and after the change in work weeks. There was therefore no violation of the above quoted Sections 1-b, 1-c or 1-f and those rules lend no support to the Employes' position in the instant dispute.

In conclusion, the Carrier respectfully reasserts that the claim of the Employes in the instant case is wholly without merit or support under the Clerks' Agreement and should be denied in its entirety.

OPINION OF BOARD: E. L. Reissig, a Yard Clerk, worked a Tuesday through Saturday workweek with assigned rest days of Sunday and Monday. During the week commencing Tuesday, March 1, 1960 the Carrier changed the assignment on which he worked to one with rest days of Saturday and Sunday, effective Monday, March 7, 1960. Reissig, the Claimant, applied for the new position in accordance with Bulletin No. 10, dated March 2, 1960 which permitted bids until Noon on Wednesday, March 9, 1960. He was instructed to protect the position during the bulletin period, including Monday, March 7, 1960. The Claimant worked Tuesday, March 1 through Saturday, March 5 and Monday, March 7 through Friday, March 11, 1960. The Organization filed a claim for an additional payment of four hours at his pro rata rate for work performed on Monday, March 7, 1960.

The Organization contends that Monday, March 7th was the seventh day of the workweek he commenced on March 1, 1960, and that under Article VI he is therefore entitled to payment at the time and one-half rate because it was his rest day. It contends that the new job assignment did not become

accordingly he was working on Monday March 7 not as a new assignee on the new position but as a carry-over, required by the Carrier to protect the assignment during the bulletin period.

The Carrier contends that work done on the Monday in question constituted the commencement of the new workweek assignment and did not justify additional compensation particularly since Article VI, Section 1-C relieves the Carrier from liability for overtime on the sixth and seventh day of a workweek where the work is performed due to moving from one assignment to another as in this case.

In this case there is no question that the Carrier has the right with proper notice to make an assignment change as a means of changing the workweek. The parties in correspondence had stated that if such an assignment change and the bulletining of it were announced sufficiently in advance for the Claimant to be assigned as the successful applicant for the position on Monday then he would have had the alternative of bidding off the position or commencing work on Monday, March 7, 1960 on the newly established position as the first day of the new workweek at the straight time rate of pay.

In this case the Claimant was working Monday, March 7th not on his own volition or through the exercise of seniority, but under orders to remain on and protect the assignment during the bulletin period. As a result he was entitled to four hours extra compensation on March 7, 1960, inasmuch as bids for the new assignment had not yet been closed.

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 violated.

AWARD