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

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on March 26, 1975 it abolished certain Relief positions established to relieve the first and third Operator-Clerk positions and A. R. Brand, regular assigned second trick Operator-Clerk, a seven-day OperatorClerk in Chief Train Dispatchers O providing rest-day relief for first and third trick thereat, while reducing the second trick Operator-Clerk assignment to a five-day position with no rest day relief but retaining the same work-week with rest days of Sunday and Monday, and

 2. As a consequence, Carrier shall, beginning June 2, 1975 and continuing until corrected, compensate Claimant A. R. Brand:



OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to March 26, 1975, Operator-Clerks were
 assigned to provide around-the-clock support to
 the Chief Train Dispatchers seven days a week. Claimant was assigned
 as a second trick Operator-Clerk -- 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., with
 rest days of Sunday and Monday. Relief for the Operator-Clerks on
 their rest days had been accomplished by occupants of regular Relief
 Positions 9 and 11. As of March 26, 1975, the Carrier abolished
 Relief Positions 9 and 11, and established one new Relief Position
 for all three shifts; at the same time, the Carrier determined to


leave vacant the Operator-Clerk's position on the second trick -the one occupied by the Claimant during the second trick on Sunday and Monday did not support the need for such coverage. Thus, relief was provided the first trick Operator on Sundays and Mondays and the third trick Operator on Tuesdays and Wednesdays by the single Relief Operator-Clerk. No Operator-Clerk coverage was assigned to the second trick on Sunday and Monday tours until June 29, 1976 -- some 15 months later. Petitioner cites applicable provisions of Rule 3 of the Agreement then in effect as the basis for its claim; this Rule provides (in pertinent part) that:

        "NOTE: The expressions 'positions' and 'work' used in this Rule 3 refer to service, duties, or operations necessary to be performed the specified number of days per week, and not to the work week of individual employees.


        "Work Week.


        (a) There is hereby established for all employees covered by this Agreement, subject to the exceptions contained in this Agreement, a work week of forty (40) hours, consisting of five (5) days of eight (8) hours each, with two (2) consecutive days off in each seven (7); the work weeks may be staggered in accordance with the Management's operational requirements; so far as practicable the days off shall be Saturday and Sunday. This rule is subject to the following provisions:


        "Five-Day Positions.


        (b) On positions the duties of which can reasonably be met in five (5) days, the days off will be Saturday and Sunday.


        "Six-Day Positions.


        (c) Where the nature of the work is such that employees will be needed six (6) days each week, the rest days will be either Saturday and Sunday or Sunday and Monday.

                    Award Number 22426 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-22043


        "Seven-Day Positions.


        (d) On positions which have been filled seven (7) days per week any two (2) consecutive days may be the rest days with the presumption in favor of Saturday and Sunday.


        "Deviation from Monday-Friday Week.


        (f) If in positions or work extending over a period of five (5) days per week, an operational problem arises which the Management contends cannot be met under the provisions of paragraph (b), above and requires that some of such employees work Tuesday to Saturday instead of Monday to Friday, and the employees contend to the contrary, and if the parties fail to agree thereon, then if the Management nevertheless puts such assignments into effect, the dispute may be processed as a grievance or claim under this Agreement."


Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Carrier has evidenced that the second trick position is a "Five-Day Position," as indicated by Rule 3(b), since no work was assigned on the rest days for the second trick for over a year, and that such work thus could "reasonably be met is five (5) days," and that the Carrier failed to seek a variance as under 3(f) -- "Deviation from MondayFriday Week." The Petitioner theref entitled to pay at time and one-half for the Saturdays he worked on what should have been his regular rest day, and pay at his regular rate for the Mondays he was held out of service as a rest day, but which he should have been allowed to work.

 The Carrier contends that the work of the Chief Dispatcher's Office does not cease during the second trick on Sundays and Mondays, that the position of Operator-Clerk on the second trick continued as a "Seven-Day Position," as defined by 3(d), but that work load diminished to the point that coverage was not necessary for the period involved.
                    Award Number 22426 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-22043


        The Petitioner's rationale is not well taken here. From

the Petitioner's own statement of the facts it is apparent that the
 first trick Operator-Clerk's regular schedule was Tuesday-Saturday
 and the third trick Operator-Clerk worked Thursday-Monday; thus
 the work week for all three tricks was "staggered in accordance with
 the Management's operational requirements." Presumably, this was
 the same operating procedure that existed before the Carrier altered
 its practices of providing relief coverage for the second trick
 Operator-Clerk. Bile 3(b) speaks to the reasonableness of meeting
 the duties of the position in five days. The decision of the Carrier
 to leave such position vacant continuously for over a year while
 simultaneously contending a "Seven-Day Position" remained intact
 raises the question as to how such work -- properly assigned to
 operator-Clerks -- went forward during such relief periods. If the
 Chief Train Dispatcher's office continued to function during this
 period and if the Operator-Clerks' position remained a Seven-Day
 Position during. this period, it follows that the work of Operator
 Clerk also continued during this period. That is not the issue
 before the Board, however, and it is inappropriate to speculate in
 that regard. Based upon the Claim as stated, we find no support.
 for the Petitioner.

        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 disputes involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                                                        i


                                                        I


                    Award Number 22426 Page 5

                    Docket Number CL-22043

                    A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1979.

 i