(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Port Terminal Railroad Association

1. The Association violated the Agreement between the parties at Houston, Texas, February 2, 1975, when it called and used Head IBM Programmer C. E. Johnson instead of Mr. C. J. Anderson on an unassigned day to perform the work regularly assigned to and customarily performed by Mr. C. J. Anderson as the regular occupant of Machine Operator-Clerk Position No. 141.

 2. The Association_ as a result of this violation, shall now allow Mr. C. J. Anderson one day's pay at the time and one-half rate of Machine Operator-Clerk Position No. 141 for February 2, 1975.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts giving rise to the instant claim are as follows:
 Claimant was the regularly assigned occupant of Machine
 Operator-Clerk Position No. 141 in the General Office of the Port Terminal Rail
 road Association. He is assigned to work Monday through Friday with rest days
 Saturday and Sunday. There is no regular rest day relief assignment assigned
 on Saturday and Sunday. On Sunday, February 2, 1975 the Association used Mr.
 C. J. Anderson, the regular occupant of Position No. 141 in the General Office,
 to perform the work of preparing the End of Month Reports. Mr. Anderson was
 compensated 8 hours at the overtime rate for this service.

 The instant claim involves the interpretation of Rule 11 (i), Work on Unassigned Days. It is the Organization's position that the work of preparing the End of Month Re the Claimant as part of his regular five-day work week assignment. And inasmuch as there was no avai foregoing work on Saturday, February 2, 1975, the Organization argues that consistent with Rule 11 (i) Claimant should have been called to perform it. Carrier retorts that the work of preparing End of Month Reports has not been exclusively assigned to the Claimant; that C. J. Anderson was senior to the Claimant; and that pursuant to a local agreement, the senior employe on the "Willing Workers" list is called and used to fill vacancies when the extra board is exhausted, as was the case on the date of claim.

 If, as the Carrier asserts, C. J. Anderson normally prepared End of Month Reports as part of his regular five-day work week assignment then the Association could properly use him to perform said work on a day which


is not part of any assignment. This Board has carefully reviewed the correspondence between the and nowhere therein is there evidence that Mr. Anderson has performed this work as part of his regular assignment. The Association did claim that Anderson can operate any machine in the I.B.M. Department, and that both his position and Claimant's position encompass the same principal duties. However, this falls far short of proving that Anderson normally prepared End of Month Reports as part of his regular assignment. There is simply no evidence in the record to support the Association's contention.

 The record does evidence, however, that Claimant does indeed normally perform this work as part of his five-day work week assignment. It can no longer be questioned that Claimant is thereby entitled to this work when it is to be performed on a day which is not part of any assignment irrespective whether he performed this work to the exclusion of all other employes. (Cf., for example, Awards 12957, 19039 and 19439). Since there was no extra or unassigned employe available to perform the work of preparing End of Month Reports, and since this work was normally performed by the Claimant Monday through Friday, we hold that Rule 11 (i) required the Association to use Claimant fo as the Association did not challenge the claim for compensation at the punitive rate while the claim was handled on the property, this Board is compelled to sustain the claim as it was submitted to us.

        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 violated.


                    A W A R D r -'


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUB

                            OARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: &#0*01410 ~~/a.,
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of April 1977.