The agreement involved became effective February 16, 1949, and has been revised to October 1, 1950. Copies of the agreement are on file with the Third Division.

OPINION OF BOARD: For the period of time here involved Claimant Signal Helper was caused by the Carrier to suspend work on his regular assignment and work in Signal Gang No. 17. The Signal Maintainer under whom Claimant normally worked was absent, observing his vacation.

The petitioning Organization contends that this act of the Carrier is violative of agreement Rule 27 which prohibits changing an employe from his assignment except in an emergency. The Carrier responds that its action is in conformity with Article 4 of the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941 and the interpretive award thereof of Referee Morse and, therefore, not violative of either agreement.

Petitioner then contends that, in conflicts between the Vacation Agreement and the local Schedule Agreement, the Schedule Agreement prevails, citing Award Nos. 2340, 2484, 2537, 3022, 3733, 3795, 4260, 5717, 5834, and Second Division Award No. 2616.

We do not here overrule the awards cited by the Petitioner; however, we are also mindful of Referee Morse's statement in his interpretation of Article 4 of the Vacation Agreement that:

"However, it is the opinion of the referee that when the parties agreed upon the language of the second paragraph of Section (b) of Article 4, they recognized that it would not be fair, as a regular practice when granting group vacations, to furlough those employees in the group who were not entitled to a vacation at that time. It is to be assumed that the parties realized that such a practice would. be detrimental to labor morale and would be considered by the employes as grossly unfair. The referee believes that the parties agreed to cooperate in assigning such employes to other jobs in order to avoid the ill feeling which would be bound to result from a policy of furloughing the men. As pointed out by the spokesman for the employes, the problem of taking care of remaining forces in group vacation situations could be solved in a large measure by long-time planning on a cooperative basis between representatives of the carriers and employes."

While Petitioner contends that work assignable to a Signal Helper remained on the Claimant's assignment that Claimant could have performed without the Maintainer, Carrier denies that such work remained and that it

would have been necessary to abolish Claimant's position had he not been reassigned. We do not find that sufficient evidence has been presented to substantiate the Petitioner's contention.

Petitioner further points out that the Carrier failed to cooperate with the employes' committee in making the reassignment, but we do not find that this issue was raised in handling of the claim on the property and must, therefore, fail.

In light of the foregoing, we do not believe it to have been the intent of the parties in negotiating either Rule 27 or the Vacation Agreement that Rule 27 should work to the detriment of any employe. This Board feels that the parties hereto have only been guilty, in the words of Referee Morse, of an omission of "planning on a cooperative basis between representatives of the carriers and employes", and that the Agreement has not been violated.

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 respeetively 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 has not been violated.

AWARD