(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Railway
 Company that:

 (a) The Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of the Vacation Agreement, when it failed to assign a relief man to the Lodi, Wis., territory during the absence of the regular assignee T. C. Malin, between September 8 thru 11, a period of 4 days.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to compensate the employes at the punitive rate of pay, in addition to what they have already been paid -- Mr. M. Miller, Sig. Mntr., Baraboo, Wis.; Mr. J. Sornsen, Sig. Mntr., Madison, Wisc; and Mr. J. Krupela, Leader Signalman, Madison, Wis. (Carrier's File: 79-8-67)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Mr. T. C. Malin, regular Signal Maintainer in the Lodi,
 Wisconsin, territory of the Chicago and North Western
 Railway Company, was on vacation for four days (32 hours), September 8, 9, 10,
 11, 1970. The regular relief man was also absent during this period of time
 because of personal illness. On September 8, two Signal employees headquartered
 at Madison, Wisconsin, worked four and one-half hours each on the Lodi territory.
 They were Signal Maintainer J. Sornsen and Leader Signalman J. Krupela. On
 September 10, Signal Maintainer M. J. Miller, headquartered at Baraboo, Wisconsin,
 worked four hours on the Lodi territory.

 The dispute in this case arose because Carrier did not provide a vacation relief worker instead man's.territory. The Brotherhood contends this constitutes a violation of Articles 6 and 10(b) of the Vacation Agreement, and asks that Carrier now be required to compensate these three men at the punitive rate of pay, in addition to what they have already been paid.

 As regards Article 6, according to the interpretation of the Vacation Agreement by Referee Morse, any claimant must show that he was overworked and not reasonably able to do the work; that he was "burdened" by the imposition of the additional duties imposed on him. In the instant case, two of the claimants worked four and o
                    Docket Number SG-19712


during a four day working period. We do not believe that they were burdened, overtaxed or oppressed by these few hours of work in the four day period. We do not think the Carrier has violated Article 6. (Award 17374 by Rambo; 15171 by Lynch; 13175 by Wolf; and many others).

 Article 10(b) is more of a pay rule. It fixes a percentage of work distribution at 25 percent. The construction placed upon its provisions, unlike upon Article 6, shou on the Lodi territory during the regularly assigned maintainer's vacation period which constituted more than 25 percent of his work during that period. This amounted to only 30 minutes more than 25 percent. Apparently Carrier agrees with this statement because on Page 55 of the Record in Carrier's Answer, we find the following statement:

        "In view of the fact that the employes from adjoining territories were required to spend only 30 minutes in

        excess of 25% of the claimant's regularly assigned hours -


        in performing work on his territory, there is no support

        for this claim."


Referee Morse, in his Interpretation on the question: "Meaning and intent of Article 10(b) stated:

        "It is the opinion of the referee that both parties to this dispute have attempted to read meanings into Section (b) of Article 10 not intended or contemplated when the parties agreed to the language on December 17, 1941 ...."


By the same token, Referee Morse's rather lengthy Interpretation provides both the Carrier and C
        Article 10(b) of the Vacation Agreement states:


        " ....However, not more than the equivalent of twenty-five percent of the work load of a given vacationing employe can be distributed among fellow employes without the hiring of a relief worker ...."


Carrier contends that the 30 minutes in excess of 25% is not sufficient to sustain the claim. Claimants maintain that any amount of time over 257 is sufficient, whether it be 30 minutes or 30 hours. The line must be drawn some place. We are inclined to agree with Claimants' view.

 However, with regard to Claimant J. Krupela, whose position permitted him to be assigned work anywhere in this district, we believe he would have been doing this particular work whether regular Signal Maintainer Malin had been on vacation or not. Thus, failure of Carrier to furnish a relief employe did not in any way create any additional work for him.
                    Award Number 19990 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-19712


        FINDINCS.: The Thi·d Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the p-,rties 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 violated in accordance with Opinion.


                      A W A R D


        Claims of Sornsen and Miller sustained. Claim of Krupela denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By. Ord--r of Third Division


        xecuti~tary ATTEST: ~,


      ~' Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of October 19'/3.