His assigned rest (lays were Saturday and Sunday. All other assignments in the department were also on a Monday thru Friday workweek. The Carrier made no advance arrangements by establishing a vacation relief position.

On the first day and continuing through the vacation period of Clark, Claimant Nichols, regularly assigned as Propane Plant operator was instructed and required to leave his regular assignment for six (6) hours each day and fill the assignment. Claimant Bosley, Foreman, was required to do the same for a period of two (2) hours each day. Their own positions were blanked during the period they filled the vacation assignment.

On January 1, 1969, claim was filed with the Purchasing Agent, Mr. G. J. Barber, by the Local Chairman, allcging violations of the Agreement basically in the fact that Employes were required to suspend work on their regular positions to absorb the overtime for rest day work which would have been necessary had the vacation assignment been filled in accord with the rules of the Agreement and further alleging violation of the seniority rights of certain employes for failure to call them for rest day work (Employes' Exhibit No. 1).

The claim was denied by the Purchasing Agent on February 10, 1969 (Employes' Exhibit No. 2) and appealed by the General Chairman under date of April 2, 1969 to the Manager of Personnel, Mr. U. B. Llewellyn, the highest officer of the Carrier to which the appeal could be carried. (Employes' Exhibit No. 3). Without benefit of conference the Manager of Personnel rendered his decision on April 16, 1969 denying the claim (Employes' Exhibit No. 4).

At the Organization's request conference was held on Wednesday, May 21, 1969, and the Manager of Personnel reaffirmed his previous decision.

On October 31, 1969 the matter was again discussed in final conference with no resolving of the dispute. This conference was acknowledged on November 4, 1969, by the General Chairman and copies of statements were furnished the Carrier as supporting evidence in the claim (Employes' Exhibit No. 5, pages 1 and 2).

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Stores Department is open five days a week from 8:00 A. AT. to 5:00 P. M. All employes are assigned the same hours with Saturday and Sunday relief days.

Regular Stores Department Counterman I. B. Clark took his vacation from November 4th to 22, 1968. During his absence his position was blanked and all counter work was performed by Stores Department employes C. F. Nichols and P. P. Bosley, who also regularly perform counter work.

OPINION OF BOARD: Regular Stores Department Counterman 1. B. Clark took his vacation from November 4th to 22nd. The Organization contends that Claimants Nichols (regularly assigned as Propane Plant Operator) and Bosley (regularly assigned as Foreman-Stores Department) were required to suspend work on their regular assignments in order to relieve vacationing employe Clark; that the positions of Nichols and Bosley were blanked during this period of time; and that Claimants Mau, Nusbaum and Melton

were the proper employes who should have been called on a rest day basis to work the vacation assignment. Carrier denies liability on this claim and in support of such denial, maintains that Clark's position was blanked during his vacation period; that Claimants Nichols and Bosley had authority to, and did, absorb Clark's duties without suspending work on their (Claimant's) regular assignments; that Claimants Nichols and Bosley performed no work outside their regular assignments; that no contract rule prohibits the blanking of temporary vacancies; and that there was not violation of the vacation agreement or other rules cited by the Organization. Although there are several statements contained in the record to the effect that Claimants Nichols and Bosley suspended their own work in order to attend the duties of vacationing employe Clark, these statements are uncorroborated by probative evidence and must be classified as self serving. The record is void of evidence to the effect that Nichols and Bosley did not normally perform overlapping duties which also involved vacationing employe Clark's duties.

This Board finds from the record that Employe Clark's position was blanked during his vacation and that Employes Nichols and Bosley absorbed the duties of his (Clark's) position during his vacation period. This Board further finds that Employes Nichols and Bosley did not suspend their own work in order to absorb Clark's duties and that Claimants Nichols and Bosley performed no work outside the scope of their employment while absorbing the duties of Clark's position. Therefore, this Claim will be denied.

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