(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the parties when it failed and refused to call Rotating Extra Board Employee, D. R. Smith, to fill a vacancy to perform the service of hauling train crews from Chaffee, Missouri, to St. Louis, Missouri, on each date of June 18 and 23, 1977.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Rotating Extra Board Employee, D. R. Smith, an additional eight hours pay for each date of June 18 and 23, 1977.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant herein was an Extra Board employe, regularly
 assigned to Rotating Extra Board No. 1 at Chaffee,
 Missouri. Having worked Tuesday through Friday, June 14 through 17,
 protecting a certain vacancy, he was notified on that Friday to protect
 a different position the following day, Saturday, June 18; such assignment
 was to be during the hours of 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p. m. At 11:00 a.m. on
 that Saturday, it became necessary to deadhead a train crew by automobile
 from a different location to St. Louis; such work would commence prior to
 but overlap (apparently) the 3:30 p. m. to 11:30 p. m. schedule to which
 the Claimant was previously assigned. Apparently no other Rotating Extra
 Board employes or Extra List employes were available and a regularly
 assigned..elerical employe o3"his resC-day was called to perform the crew
 transporting duties.

 On June 20 and 21 -- a Monday and Tuesday -- Claimant protected a represented position at Chaffee. The next day, June 22 -- a Wednesday -was observed by the Claiman and notified to. protect a different vacancy at a different location -Cape Girardeau -- on the follo Apparently, shortly after making this assignment, the Carrier found it necessary to deadhead a train crew via automobile between Chaffee and Rush Island -- different locations from that to which the Claimant had been assigned to work the following day. Such assignment was to commence at


4:00 a.m. on June 23, it apparently terminated prior to the shift to which Claimant was assigned to work on that date. Having made the June 23 assignment to the Claimant, the Carrier considered him non-available; there being no other Rotating Extra Board or Extra List employe available, the Carrier called a regular assigned clerical employe on his rest day to perform service.

 At issue here is the application of Article R, Section 1(f) of the December 1, 1969 Agreement between the parties;

        "Incumbents of extra board positions will have preferential rights over extra list employes to short vacancies, temporary assignments on clerical and telegrapher positions, training, assisting other clerks and/or telegraphers, or for any other work in the clerical and telegrapher crafts, and will be notified or called to work on a rotating basis, first-in, first-out."


According to the Carrier, the operative phrase in this provision is "notified or called to work." According to the Organization this Rule is properly implemented by permitting an affected employe any such opportunities that might arise before he is actually required to commence work on an assignment. This Rule is obviously intended to permit the coverage of vacancies by use of Rotating Extra Board and Extra List employes so as to ensure an uninterrupted work process. The work increment of transporting the train crew on Saturday, June 18 overlapped the previously scheduled assignment to the Claimant of that date; this Rule cannot be construed to permit a "picking and choosing"..of such assignments. In the latter case there was no such overlap. According to the record, the knowledge of the need to transport the train crew came shortly after notice was given the Claimant of the work assignment for the following day. It is also noteworthy that he was observing a rest day on the day of notification.

 We find the latter situation distinguishable from the former. Article %, Section 1 (f) recognizes that Extra Board employes have preferential rights to assignments as described herein. The Carrier was not denied the opportunity to ensure coverage of vacancies by alerting the Claimant to the earlier work opportunity. To find otherwise is to sanction the "picking to offer an Extra Board or Extra List employe, when two assignments might arise simultaneously -- one offering a nominal opportunity for work and the other a more extensive one, We conclude that the timing of
                      Award Number 22785 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-22512


such work assignments permitted the notification of the Claimant and allowed for the exercise of an option, without violation of the Rules.

        Consequently, we order compensation for the claim of June 23,


        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 violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained as set out in the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ..
 Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March 1980.