(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie ( Railroad Company

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective September 1, 1946, particularly Rules 28 and 8, when it used a junior regularly assigned employe to work Job C in the Centralized Agency, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on the dates of May 9 and 10, 1974.

 (b) The Carrier be required to compensate Clerk B. B. Buerkle for eight hours at the punitive rate of Job C in the Centralized Agency, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl 1974.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Clerk Michalski was assigned to a position on the
 extra list that began on a Monday. The previous
 week he bid on an assignment and was successful.. The new assignment's
 work week began on Saturday with rest days Thursday and Friday. Clerk
 Michalski worked on the extra assignment Monday through Friday and
 commenced his new assignment on Saturday.

 The Organization contends that under a January 26, 1954 letter agreement Clerk Michalski's new position in regularly assigned status was effective Thursday, and that Claimant should have been called to work that Thursday and Friday.

 The pertinent portion of the January 26, 1954 letter agreement reads:



Carrier contends that ti. was proper to place Clerk Michalski on the position to which he bid on the first day of the work week of that position, and that was on Saturday.

 Both parties agree that the issue is whether Clerk Michalski was properly used as an extra employe to fill vacancies on Thursday and Friday, or whether he was improperly used as a regularly assigned employe thus depriving Claimant, a senior regularly assigned employe, of rest day service.

 Carrier takes the position that Yichalski, even though he had bid for "and been assigned to a regular position effective Thursday, May 9, the first of the two consecutive relief days of that position... the Work week rule does not permit a work week to be started on the rest days of an assignment, therefore, Clerk Michalski could not be actually assigned to the regular position until Saturday, May 11." That being the case, Carrier argues, "Clerk Michalski retained his status as an extra employe whose work week began on Monday, May 6, and having worked only three days in that work week, /a-aJ it was incumbent on the Carrier to call Clerk Michalski.from the extra list to fill the vacancies in question on May 9 and 10 at straight time rate o, pay."

 It is clear from this record that Clerk Michalski's status changed from an extra employe to a regularly assigned employe on Thursday, May 9. As of that time he was junior to Claimant, and Claimant was entitled to the work.

 To hold otherwise would completely disregard the provisions of the January 26, 1954 letter agreement. By so holding, the Board is not making any judgement on the merits, if any, that Clerk Michalski might have had if he had not been allowed to work.



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;
                  Docket 14imnber CL-21344


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

        The Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.

        NATICKAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

        PAa By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago,.I71inois, this 31st day ofJanuary 1978.