(Joint Council of Dining Car Employes Local 465 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STAT1:?·tF,'·'T OF CLAIM: (a) That the Superintendent of the Dining Car Dep Omaha District violated section (d) of the Extra Board Rule, when he refused to call the employe and inform him that the Extra Board was exhausted and that he was the next up for rotation.

 (b) That the Union Pacific Railroad shall pay Dining Car Waiter H^rbert L. Childs the amount of $156 deducted from his compensation for the month of October, 1970.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On October 16, 1970 Carrier called claimant for duty as a
 relief waiter at about 9:00 p.m. Carrier reached someone
 at one of the telephone numbers claimant had given it and was told that he
 was not there but an attempt would be made to locate him. At about 10:55 p.m.
 Carrier was advised that the attempt to locate claimant had not been sucessful.
 Another furloughed waiter was contacted and he covered the assignment.

 Claimant was a fully protected employee under the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement. He was furloughed at the time of the call and was not assigned to the extra board.

 We are not called upon here to apply or interpret the terms of the Mediation Agreement. The question presented to the Board by this claim is limited to whether Carrier was required by the terms of the Extra Board Rule to give claimant advance notice that he was subject to call. The Organization has based its contention that such notice is required upon Section (d) of the Extra Board Rule which reads:



We are unable to agree with claimant' contention that paragraph (d) of the Extra Board Rule requires Carrier to give a furloughed employee notice that he has been temporarily added to the extra Board and thus stands for a call. There is simply no support for the Organization's position in the language it refers to. Pararaph (d) regulates the calling of furloughed employees for regular assignments or positions on the extra board. Most significant for this claim is the provision which states "except when there are no emnloyces on the extra board available f-r service." There is..no question about the fact that we are dealing with a factual situation in which that language is applicable. There were no employees on the extra board available for service. That is the reason that Carrier called claimant for service. liven if paragraph (d) supported claimant's position here in some way, and it does not, it would be inapplicable because of the provision quoted above. Parafraph (d) does not apply to calls made when extra board employees are not available and no extra board employee was available for the service for which clainant was called. The claim must be denied.

        FIJ'DINGS: 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; ..^ad

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~ ~ ,
                    e~h

        executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1973.

 . r:-·,~ ~~