(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

On behalf of Signalman R. L. Shaftstall for 16 hours pay at time and one-half rate for November 23 & 24, 1974, and 24 hours pay at the straight time rate for November 20, 25 and 26, 1974, account being required to work another position. CGeneral Chairman file: 75-01-87. Carrier file: SI-34(b) 2/6/7)

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the movement of Claimant from
 his regular position of Signalman to a vacation
 assignment of Signal Maintainer at a different work location. The
 issues in disagreement are whether or not Carrier was restricted from
 assigning Claimant to the vacation relief position; secondly, whether
 Claimant was compensated properly in the relief assignment.

 Petitioner argues that Carrier did not have the right under the schedule Agreement to assign Claimant to the vacation vacancy. In addition, it is urged that he did not receive the 36 hour notice required by Rule 8 for a change in starting time. Petitioner contends that Claimant should have been paid for his regular assignment for the days in question since he was held off his established position and it was not abolished. For each day claimed, Petitioner asks for pay in addition to that received by Claimant.

 Carrier states that Claimant was verbally advised by the Supervisor of Signals on November 18, 1974 that he was assigned to the vacation vacancy and this notification was confirmed by wire on November l9th. Carrier points out that for the period involved Claimant was paid at the higher rate of Retarder Yard Maintainer rather than his regular rate of pay. Carrier's principal argument is that there is no restriction in any of the. Schedule Rules which would preclude Carrier from making the temporary vacation assignment and that such assignment was specifically contemplated in both Rule 16 and the Vacation Agreement. Carrier asserts that Petitioner has failed to prove any rule violation on the part of Carrier.
                  Docket Number SG-21484


The record indicates that Claimant was properly notified of the temporary assignment on November 18th; this fact was not rebutted or denied by Petitioner. Article 6 of the Vacation Agreement provides, in part:

            "The carriers will provide vacation relief workers but the vacation system shall not be used as a device to make unnecessary jobs for other workers..."


In the interpretation of Article 6 of the Vacation Agreement, Referee Morse stated:

            "(2) The term 'vacation relief workers' is not used in a technical sense ....The term also includes those regular employees who may be called upon to move from their job to the vacationer's job for that period of time during which the employee is on vacation."


Article 10 of the Vacation Agreement together with Rule 16 of the Schedule Agreement provide the mechanics of payment for employes given vacation relief assignments.

 There have been a number of Awards dealing with the issues in this dispute. In Award 11859 this Board said that rest days attach to positions filled (in a dispute involving a relief assignment). In Award 14324 which dealt with a very similar factual circumstance, the Board held:

            "From the facts of record; our study of the Vacation Agreement and Interpretations relative thereto; and Awards cited by the parties, we find: (1) Claimant was properly assigned to the vacation relief position; (2) while on the relief position Claimant assumed all the conditions of that higher rated position, including the hours assigned, rest days, and rate of pay; and, (3) during the period of the vacation relief assignment, Claimant had no contractual right to work on his regular assignment although he continued vested with ownership thereof."

                  Award Number 21614 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-21484


In this case, similar to that in Award 14324, Claimant assumed the rate of pay, rest days and work location of the employe he relieved. Under the provisions of the Vacation Agreement, there appears to be no basis for the Claim; Claimant was properly compensated for the relief assignment.

        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 not violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~~ Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of July 1977.