(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Duluth Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Carrier'), violated the effective Agreement (effective December 1, 1972) between the parties, including but not limited to Rule 7 in particular when it failed to relieve Train Dispatcher J. H. Oberbillig on Tuesday, September 25, 1984.

 (b) For the above violation, the Carrier shall now compensate Claimant Extra Train Dispatcher S. J. Novak one days' pay (eight hours) at the appropriate rest day or overtime rate for trick train dispatcher."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned to Relief Position No. 3. On four
 days each week, he relieved Trick Train Dispatchers. On
 the fifth day, Tuesday, he had "duties assigned by Chief Dispatcher." On
 Tuesday, September 24, 1984, Oberbillig reported off ill. Carrier first
 attempted to call an Extra Train Dispatcher to work in Oberbillig's absence,
 but he was assigned elsewhere. No further attempt was made to fill the
 position.

 Claimant was an Extra Train Dispatcher observing Tuesday as a rest day. The Organization argues that the Claimant should have been called to fill the vacancy caused by Oberbillig's absence, under Rule 7 which reads as follows:

In general, the Carrier does not dispute the application of Rule 7. In this instance, however, the Carrier points out that Oberbillig was absent on a so-called "fill-in" date on which he did not replace another Train Dispatcher on a rest day. Th all-inclusive requirement of Rule 7. Presumably, Oberbillig was regularly assigned to duties as specified by the Carrier on the fifth day of his weekly assignment. Thus, the Board finds Rule 7 equally applicable on such a day.

 This is confirmed to some degree by the fact that the record demonstrates that an initial attemp Dispatcher other than the Claimant.
                        Docket Number TD-26519


The Carrier also points out that the filling of a vacancy for employes absent due to illness is not necessarily required under agreements with other crafts. The Carrier also notes that certain sick leave benefits are afforded to Train Dispatchers without being memorialized in an agreement. The Board finds that this circumstance does not, however, negate the provisions of Rule 7.

 The conclusion reached by the Board follows that reached in Third Division Award No. 6750 under a virtually identical Rule. That Award states as follows:

          ... Here it is conceded Carrier had made work on Gipson's position when it was established. It is our view that thereafter the work assigned to such position was a part of that regular assignment and the days thereof could no more be blanked than could days of other regularly assigned positions of different character ....


In support of its position, the Carrier refers to Third Division Award Nos. 25456 and 25883. These Awards, however, concern other circumstances in reference to a Chi relevant here.

        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.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest.
 Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1987.