(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes ( (formerly Transportation-Communication, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Kansas City Terminal Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communi
 cation Division, BRAG, on the Kansas City Terminal, T-C 5824,
 that:

 In accordance with Rule 12 A superseded by Article V of our Agreement, and on behalf of Wayne C. Richards, please consider this as a claim for 8 hours pay at pro rata rate for Friday, May 1, 1970.

 This claim account assignment Bulletin No. 5, dated April 29, 1970 assigning Mr. Richards on a rest day violates our Agreement Rule 8 Section 1(A) also Par. (1) Beginning of Work Week. Since Mr. Richards was ready and not used on this date Carrier also violated Rule 5(C).

 OPINION OF BOARD: On Friday, May 1, 1970, when the Carrier assigned the claimant,
 who held a regularly assigned position with a work week of
 Friday through Tuesday and rest days of Wednesday and Thursday, to a new relief
 position, which the Carrier had advertised for bid, with a work week of Saturday
 through Wednesday with rest days of Thursday and Friday, the claimant lost 8 hours
 on the first day of his new assignment because he could not work the job on its
 rest day.

 The Organization contends that the assignment of the claimant was in violation of the Agreement. The Carrier contends that the claimant bid on the job of his own free will and was granted the assignment on the basis of his seniority and that the job began on the day he won the bid, regardless of whether it was the rest day of the new job.

 The issue in this case has been before this Board on so many occasions that it should be considered Stare Decisis. As recently as Award 4)19482, Referee Blackwell wrote as follows:



      The record before us supports the Employes' contention that the rebulletining of the third shift change in its rest days. It follows that the only remaining problem is whether the 40-Hour Week rules permit a work week to be started on its rest days.


      This question has been before the Board in scores of cases, and has consistently been decided in the negative. Award 6519, with Opinion by Referee William M. Leiserson, who, as Chairman of the Emergency Board which granted the 40-hour week and later as arbitrator, wrote most of the rules in question, gave this issue detailed treatment.


      Referee Leiserson concluded his remarks on this point with these significant words:


              "..,By requiring him to take the rest days of the new assignment in advance of the work-days, the Carrier not only violated the 72-hour notice rule, which it admits, but also the 'Beginning of Work Week' rule (8, Section 2 (i)). This rule says a work-week begins 'on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work.' (emphasis added) It does not permit a work-week to begin on a rest day. By requiring claimant to start resting on Sunday then continue to work the Tuesday through Saturday position, it clearly started him on the rest days of the new assignment. In this way the assignment was turned would remain turned around as long as the claimant occupied the position."


              (The emphasis was added by the Referee. Rule 8, Sec. 2 (i) there was the same as Rule 9 (i) in the present case.)


      The principle thus enunciated has been followed and applied with practical unanimity ever since. 10289, 10517, 10786, 10875, 10908, 11460, 11474, 11990, 11991, 11992, 12455, 12601, 12721, 12722, 12798, 13660, 14116, 14213, 15222, 15338, 15441, 15530, 17343, 18011, among many others will substantiate this observation.


      In conformity with the precedent thus established and settled, this claim will be sustained."


      The assignment of the claimant in this case to his new job on the rest day of that new position was a violation of the Agreement. The Carrier should have permitted the claiman him to his new position on the first work day of his new work week. Rule 9 - Overtim Calls (b) and (c) of the contract provides that it is a specific exception to tY time and one-half rule when work in excess of forty hours in a work week or work .the sixth day in a assignment to another.


I
 I

 .j
                Award Number 19622 Page 3

                Docket Number TE-19462


        FI:IDIIX;S: The Third Division of the Adjustrre;it Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        The.t the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier ar.3 the Lhmloye^ involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and L-Tloyes within the c:enning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1,034;

 That this Division of the Adjustmcut Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        The Agreement was violated.


                      A W L. R D


        The claim is sustained.


                          NATIORAL RAILIJOAD ADJUSTMPfi BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEf.T i
 xxecu ve ecretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1973.