Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29443
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29863
 92-3-91-3-258
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "CLais ~f the System Committee of the Organization

CLAIM N0. 1
(a) Carrier violas=a the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Kansas City, Kansas, on ;ugust 5, 1989, when it diverted J. R. Myers from his assignment Di Janitor Yards Position No. 6122 to perform relief work and then failed and/.~r refused _o compensate him, and

 (b) J. Z. Myers sna_1 now be compensated eight (8) hours' pay at the pro rata rate )- Ian it3r Yards Position No. 6122 for August 5, 1989, in addition to any other ~ompe
CLAIM N0. 2
(a) Carrier violated the intent and provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Kansas City, Kansas commencing September 7, 1989, when it diverted J. R. Myers from 'n:s assignment on CLIC Position No. 6098 to perform relief work ana :hen failed and/or refused to compensate him, and

 (b) J. ~. 'Myers snail now be compensated one hour and 30 minutes at the half time rate of Casnier Position No. 6054, plus eight (8) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of CL IC Position No. 6098 for each day of assignment, September 7 through September 15, 1989 (seven total days), in addition to any other compensation already received for these dates."

FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of tie Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 Form 1 Award No. 29443
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29863

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 The Claimant was in off-in-force reduction status and on August 4, 1989, was called to provide short vacancy relief on Position 6122. He worked on that position on August 4. On Saturday, August 5, 1989, he was scheduled on Position 6122 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM but he was instructed to protect a short vacancy on Relief Position 7713 because there were no other employees available to do so. He protected Position 6098, rather than (as the Organization categorizes it) his compensation under the December 7, 1977 Letter of Understanding.









Since, according to Carrier, the Claimant was not a "regularly assigned employee," Rule 32-97 wa




Under Rule 14-8 employees, except while regularly assigned, must make themselves available for short vacancies, and off-in-force reduction employees who desire to be used for short vacancies must file written notice of availability. The Claimant had vacancy, i.e., [1] having worked 40 hours in a work week, [2] completion of the short vacancy, or [3] displacement by a senior employee. But here, the Organization argues that the Claimant was required to suspend work in order tr absorb overtime which would `rave occurred on another short vacancy.
 Form 1 Award No. 29443
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29863
 92-3-91-3-258

 The same Claimant was called to provide short vacancy relief on CLIC Position 6098 on September 1, 1989, and worked on that date. On September 4, 5, and 6, 1989, the Claimant was off due to illness, but on September 5, he was instructed that upon his return to work he would protect a short vacancy on Cashier Position 6054. Lie complied with that instruction.

 The claims, contentions, and arguments of the parties on the property concerning the Se?tember inc',.:ent basically parallel those urged concerning the August assignments.
not the Claimant :as a "regularly assigned employee" when he was used on dif
 ferent positions ), august 5 and September 7, 1989. The Organization argues
 that, in essence, the Claimant was "regularly assigned" since, of necessity,
 he "stood in the -)Lice" of t. ,e normal incumbent.

 The Carr_zr denies :'zat the employee was "regularly assigned", but in reality, he was :. "off-in-force" employee. In support of its position, the Carrier cites tw.; ,>recedent Awards on this property and insists that the matter has been _eeided a·1I -i,is the doctrine of res judicata controls.

 On Octooer 25, 1988, Award 8 of Public Law Board No. 4157 considered a dispute between these ;a me parties which considered the same basic issue. The Award recogn:zrd that the outcome depended upon an answer to the question of whether or not the Claimant there was a "regularly assigned employee or not under Rule 32(N) ;l)." The .award concluded that the Claimant "...was not regularly assigned."

 On June =5, L991, -nis Board issued Third Division Award 28831 which considered the Organtzition's contention that the positions "...became regular assignments and :3th Claimants were de facto incumbents, "and" the Carrier's argument that they were not "regularly assigned". The Award favored the Carrier's conclusion..

 The Orga:iizatton has relied upon Third Division Award 28906. The Claimants were regularly assigned employees who objected to the use of off-in-force personnel already assigned another short vacancy. The Award considered that there was nerit in the Claimants' contentions.

 This Board is of the view that the doctrine of res judicata has appeal in this dispute. As we re a strained interpretation to conclude that the off-in-force employees become, de facto, regularly assigned in the context here under review. There are too many contractual '.--ems of distinction between the two concepts for us to decide that the Claimant


        Claim denied.

Form 1 Award No. 29443
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-29863
 92-3-91-3-258

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
 Na cy J.~7 - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Cllinuis, :,is 21st day of October 1992.