PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (.



1. Carrier violated the terms and intent of the current Clerk's Agreement, when it required or permitted the occupant of Position 4231, to perform on Saturday and/or Sunday work which was and is performed regularly Monday through Friday by the occupant of Position /206.

 2. Claim that the occupant of Position 4206, Mr. J. Bowan and/or successors, if any, be compensated eight (8) hours at the overtime rate of his position effective Sunday, September 24, 1972 and continuing each Saturday and/or Sunday thereafter until the violation is discontinued.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The organization claims eight (8) hours of compen
 sation for the occupant of Position No. 206 con
 cerning each rest day (Saturday and Sunday) since September 24, 1972,
 when individuals, other than Claimant, performed the work of weighing
 cars. It is Claimant's position that as occupant of position No.
 206, he is assigned to weigh cars during his Monday through Friday
 work week, and performance by others on his rest days violates the
 "Work on Unassigned Days Rule " Ipule 38 (j):

On the property, the parties exchanged contentions as to whether the rule of "exclusivity" is applicable. While certain Referees have held that Claimant must demonstrate "exclusivity" in order to prevail in this type of dispute, the weight of authority is to the contrary. A regular incumbent need not prove "exclusivity" in order to prevail in a "work on unassigned day" dispute, and Carrier's argument to the contrary is
Awards 18346, 19219, 19322, 19439 and 20187.


Nonetheless, Carrier notes that while the occupant of Position No. 206 does, during his normal work week, weigh cars, other employees covered by the Agreement also weigh cars during their regular assignments - and certain of the regular assignments overlap Claimant's work week. The assertion has merit, and disposes of the dispute.

 We find that employees other than Claimant weighed care during their regular work week. The record shows a listing of cars weighed during calendar year 1972. Over 700 cars were weighed on over 200 days. On 109 Mondays through Fridays, Claimant weighed 375 cars. But, on 38 other Mondays through Fridays (during the same hours of Claimant's assignment), occupants of Positions 201, 233 and Relief 3, weighed 150 cars. On 56 Saturdays and/or Sundays, the occupants of Positions No. 201 and 233 weighed 216 cars.

 The record shows that although Claimant weighed approximately one-half (~) of the cars during 19 other positions weighed the remaining one-half (h). Thus, while it appears that Claimant was regularly assigned to weigh cars during his work week, the occupants of three (3) other positions were also regularly assigned to the work as well.

 We are unable to find that Carrier violated Rule 38 (j) by utilizing the services of occupants of positions who performed substantial amounts of weighing during their regular work weeks (contemporaneously with Claimant's work week) on Claimant's rest days.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dis-, puts 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; an










ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1975.