(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
 ( Pacific Railroad Company

1) Carrier violated the provisions of the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Sioux Falls, S.D. on March 28, 1975 when it failed to call employe E. C. Johnston to perform the work of his position on a holiday.

 2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe E. C. Johnston for five hours and twenty minutes (5'20") at the rate of time and one-half of his position for a call on March 28, 1975.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This case involves holiday work on the Good Friday
 Holiday, March 28, 1975. Claimant, the Cashier at
 Sioux Falls, S.D., alleges that he should have been worked account he
 was senior to other clerks who were worked and that duties he normally
 performs during his regular work week were performed on the holiday.
 The rules that control resolution of this dispute are:












                    Docket Number CL-21912


            (g) When additional help is required for overtime work, or when the duties to be performed on overtime cannot be identified with a specific position, employes will be assigned to such overtime in accordance with seniority, fitness and ability, first from the sub-division of the department wherein the work occurs and secondly, from the entire department.


                Memorandum of Agreement No. 74


            As between the undersigned, the following is agreed to in connection with the application of Rules 32 (f) and 32(g).


            If the duties to be performed on an overtime basis cannot be identified with a specific position, employes will be called therefor in accordance with seniority, fitness and ability, first from the Sub-Division and secondly, from the Department.


                      Decision No. 2

                  40 Hour Week Committee


            Where work is required to be performed on a holiday which is not a part of any assignment, the regular employe will be used.


Examination of the record develops that there is no dispute that Claimant was senior to the chief clerk, an employe who was required to work on the holiday. The record also discloses that no duties of cashiering were performed by any clerk on the holiday. Duties of the chief clerk were performed by him as the regular incumbent of the chief clerk's position on the holiday. In addition, the chief clerk performed a limited amount of billing work which is admitted as being common to both positions during their regular workweeks. The performance of this common work, the Organization argues, triggered an agreement violation and the senior employe, the cashier, should have been called.

 Decision No. 2 of the 40 Hour Week Committee makes it clear that seniority takes a secondary role to duties when work is to be performed on a holiday. The employe whose regular duties are required on a holiday has first preference to the work.
                    Award Number 22058 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21912


In this case, the work performed was that of the chief clerk, not the cashier. The chief clerk, therefore, was the one to be given preference for the performance of this work.

 The question then arises: was it improper under these circumstances to have the chief clerk additionally perform certain work that was commonly performed by the chief clerk and the cashier during their regular workweeks? We think not. During a normal workweek the chief clerk would have performed the common work without complaint in addition to his chief clerk's duties. The rules relied upon do not prohibit this same conduct on a holiday. The claim will be denied.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties wived 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

        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 12th day of May 1978.