(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Stea:aship Clerks, Freight Fandlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

"1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to pay rate of time and one-half, clerk-operator rate, to :4r. W. G. Williams, for working clerk-operator position, Robbins, S. C. on the Florence Division, on dates of June 19 and 20, 1975,.8AM to 4 P"4.

 2. Carrier shall compensate W. G. Williams, difference in pay between straight-time and time and one-half, at clerk-operator rate, for dates of June 19 and 20, 1975, $ AM - 4 PM."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The pivotal question in this dispute is whether or
 not a guaranteed extra board employe within the
 definitional context of this agreement can be considered a regularly
 assigned employe.

 Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the language of Rule 18 (f) which provides the methodological procedures for establishing ,guaranteed extra boards and the April 18, 1975 implementing Memorandum of Agreement ,Which details the specific workplace standards and practices germane to this employment category.

 While we recognize the persuasive similarities between extra board and regularly assigned employes, particularly, the initial -bulletined assignments, displacement rights and assigned headquarters points., we .also recognize significant differences. For instance, after the initial bulletined assignment, extra board positions are then filled pursuant to the seniority requirements of Rule 17. This change is distinguishable from the repetitive bulletined procedures of regularly assigned employes. Moreover, the language of the April 11, 19175 Memorandum emphasizes the rotational nature of extra board employes' work assignments.


In the instant case, claimant was working in a position that was under bid. It was not a permanent assignment. Instead, it reflected the variability characteristics of extra board employes.

 Conversely, we are also mindful. that extra board employes are provided with stronger employ~nnt protections than unassigned employes. But these hierarchical superior distinctions are not the functional equivalents of the regularly assigned employes.

 We have no record of any specific past practice or demonstrable understanding that would suggest otherwise.

 The language of Rule 65 and its subsequent interpretative construction by the March 27, 1975 Memorandum of Agreement pertains exElusively to regularly assigne employes are not de facto analogous to regularly assigned employes, its application herein is moot. We will deny the claim.

        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. Y'E C EI VED


                  A W A R D SEP 2 2


Claw denied. ED office
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 ATTEST:J~ By Order of Third Division.

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1978.