( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it failed to follow established agreed to procedures in filling a vacation relief assignment on July 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1980;

 2. Carrier further violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it failed to follow established agreed to procedures in the selection of employes to perform extra work on July 28, 29, August 4 and 5, 1980;

 3. Carrier shall now compensate Computer Operator E. Minarich for eight (8) hours' Fay at the time and one-half rate of Position AC-946 for each of dates July 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1980, and shall compensate Computer O~)erator Phil Rodriguez for eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one=half rate of Position AC-947 for each of dates July 28, 29, August 4 and 5, 1980.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier operates a computer center at Joliet, Illinois.
 This office is operated as a sub department under the Accounting Department and is located within Se 2. At the time of the dispute the computer center was operated two turns per day.

 The circumstances out of which the two claims arose are different even though the Carrier chose to combine them in its declination of April 8, 198..

 The issues in the Minarich claim arose out of using a keypunch operator to assist a computer operator in a vacation relief situation. In the Rodriguez claim, a keypunch operator was used to assist a~omputer operator due to an extra load of work.

 In support of the claims the Union cites Article 10 of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, and also Rule 42 of the basic agreement with the Carrier as follows:
















The Union contends that "The National Vacation Agreement sought to prevent any overburdening of remaining employes and, accordingly, it provided that no one employe should absorb another's work while on vacation. It is clearly and unequivocally stated that this distribution will be '...among two or more...` employer.."

 The Board does not agree that the National Agreement requires the distribution to be among two or more employes. It only sets up this condition to show how employes will be raid in the event the work 1:e distributed among two or more employer.. The :;atioral Agreement does require that not core t::aa 25% of the work load can be distributed without hiring a relief worker. Is the Minarich claim, this condition was complied with in that only 244 of the work load of the vacationing employe was performed by Key Punch Operator Kennedy.

 Rule 42 of the basic agreement cited by the Union in aupncrt of the Minflsich claim does not appear to have applicability. It sets forth requirements for working overtime. This condition does not exist in this situation. Rul°_ 45 of the same agreement covering the subject of absorbing ovextime =rcfies:
                    Docket Number (,I-24313


            "It is the intention, however, that an employe may be used to assist another employe during his tour of duty in the same office or location where he works and in the same seniority without penalty. An employe assisting another employe on a position paying a higher rate will receive the higher rate fo the time worked while assisting such employe, except that existing rules which provide for payment for the highest rate for entire tour of duty will continue in effect...


The above quoted provisions clearly recognize Carrier's right to use workers in the same office and seniority district to assist other employes as was done in the Minarich case.

 In the Rodriguez claim the question of vacation relief is not involved. Here, the situation is that Key Funch Operator Kennedy, of the same office and seniority district was used on given dates to assist in performing the same kind of work, as in the Mina rich claim. The reason was to provide assistance with an extra work load.

 In this case the Union cites alleged violations of Rule 42, as in the previous case. Here again, the Board holds that overtime is not an issue and thus Rule 42 does not appear to have been violated. On the other hand, Rule 45, quoted above clearly provides for the use of one employe in the office and seniority district to
In both of the cases, the Union alleges violations of local agreements covering calling procedur resolution of this case and clearly cover arrangements and the order of calling computer operators for overtime. Nowhere in the provisions of the local agreements is there any indi 45 quoted above.

        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

Award Number 24673

Docket Number CL-24313


That the Agreement was not violated.

 Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


Page 4

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLSTi`4ENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 By l .,y,~,,:,si..~.y",.~ ~L./~l
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois2 this 14th day of December 1982,