THIRD DIVISION
Francis X. Quinn, Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Division, 13RAC on the Soo Line Railroad Company, that:
Since Claim No. i has been withdrawn by the Employes, the remarks herein are directed solely to the dispute set out above as Claim No. 2. This dispute is predicated on various provisions of the collective bargaining Agreement entered into by the parties effective July 1, 1956. Claim was submitted to the proper officers of the Carrier at the time and in the usual manner of handling, as required by Agreement rules and applicable provisions of law. It was discussed in conference between representatives of the parties on October 31, 1968.
The controversy arose on January 31, 1968, when the conductor of Train No. 18 was required to copy Train Order No. 173 at Auburndale, Wisconsin. Since February 20, 1963, no telegrapher positions have been maintained at that station.
Employes contended in the handling on the property, and now contend, before the Board, that certain provisions of the collective bargaining Agreement were violated. (These provisions are specifically set out in Section (d)
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute identified as Claim No. 1 has been withdrawn from consideration of this Board. We are involved only with Claim No. 2.
The issue presented in Claim No. 2 is whether Claimant was an unassigned telegrapher within the purview of the second paragraph of Rule 20.
The primary rule in the construction of contracts is that we must ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties and that intention is to be deduced from the language employed. In construing a written contract, the words employed are given their ordinary meaning.
In arriving at the intention of the parties, where the contractual language is susceptible of more than one construction it should be construed in the light of the circumstances surrounding them at the time it is made so as to judge the meaning of the words and the correct application of the language of the contract. Mindful of these principles, we have studied Rule 20.
The first paragraph of Rule 20 prohibits the handling of train orders by other than telegraphers and dispatchers at offices where an operator is employed. The second paragraph provides for payment to the senior unassigned telegrapher when employes not covered by the agreement handle train orders at points where there is no telephone or telegraph office with an operator employed.
The Agreement between the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers is replete with references to distinguish between "assigned" and "unassigned" and/or "extra" employes. Rule 6 provides that in the event a position is abolished or reclassified, the regularly assigned incumbent may displace junior regularly assigned Telegraphers. If such an employe will not or cannot so displace, he reverts to an extra list or unassigned status. Rule 11, Emergency Work, makes provisions for both regular employes taken from their assigned positions and extra or unassigned employes. Rule 16, Overtime and Calls, contains an exception for employes moving from one assignment to another or to or from an extra list. Rule 22, Relief Work-Deadheading, discusses treatment accorded regularly assigned employes required to transfer to and perform relief service on another assignment. Section (B) of that rule states that extra men drawing a position on bulletin will be considered regularly assigned. Section (c) provides that the senior idle extra list Telegrapher shall be assigned extra or relief work. Section (d) stipulates that an extra man must complete an assignment before he can be considered available for a new assign-
ment. Section (e) states that extra list Telegraphers will be considered idle upon completion of an assignment. Section (i) establishes that both regular and extra men may be assigned.
Section 1(i) of Rule 27, dealing with the 40-Hour Work Week, defines the work week for both regularly assigned and unassigned employes. This paragraph is of interest because this Board has held that an extra list man relieving on a regular position for five consecutive work days is entitled to the immediately following rest days assigned to that position, and cannot be considered available or unassigned on such days. See Awards 5049, 7174, 9393, 14096, and 16481.
From the text and the context it is clear that unassigned, as opposed to assigned, means one who has no assignment. The Claimant was assigned. The purpose of the second paragraph of Rule 20 is to afford payment to idle or unassigned extra list employes.
As to the past practice arguments, the Board has consistently held that where provisions of an Agreement are clearly unambiguous, they shall prevail over conflicting practices, and either party to the Agreement may insist upon its rights thereunder at any time.
The Board has also held that payments by operating officers are not determinative of the proper interpretation of rules negotiated by others. The preliminary offer of payment by Superintendent Jacobs obviously hinges on the knowledge and final approval of the officer authorized to make and interpret such agreements. Erroneous payments, unknown to the officer authorized to make and interpret agreements, are irrelevant to this case.
Mindful that words in the Agreement are to be given their generally accepted meaning unless specifically defined otherwise, and that Claimant was not an "unassigned telegrapher" on the claim date, we must deny his claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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