Claimant holds a Guaranteed Extra Board position at the Crew Management Center in Jacksonville, Florida. During the week of December 10-16, 1990, Claimant was called from the Extra Board to protect a hold down vacancy on Position 311. Position 311's rest days were Friday and Saturday. Claimant was compensated for Monday through Thursdav, December 10-13, 1990. Claimant was called on Saturday, December 15, 1990 for work on another position. Claimant was not home for the call. As a consequence of the missed call, the Carrier deducted eight hours from Claimant's 40 hour guarantee for the week of December 10, 1990. This claim followed.
The March 22, 1988 Agreement establishing the Extra Board at Jacksonville states, in relevant part at Section 111(b):
December 15, 1990. Claimant therefore effectively stood in the shoes of the incumbent of that position. The Organization further asserts that it was improper to reduce Claimant's 40 hour guarantee by eight hours for the missed call on the rest day of December 15, 1990 because, under Section lII(b)(2), Claimant was not "paid on ... [that] rest day."
The Carrier asserts that Claimant was unavailable on December 15, 1990 and relies upon Section 1l(f) of the Agreement:
Where an employee assumes a hold down position with that position's rest days, the above language relied upon by the parties becomes unclear. As the Organization argues, a fair interpretation of Section m(b)(2) is that the 40 hour guarantee can be reduced for a rest day only if the employee is paid for that day (e.g., if the employee works overtime on that rest day). Because Claimant was not paid for Position 311's rest day of December 15, 1990, it therefore follows that it was improper under Section III(b)(2) to reduce Claimant's guarantee for the week of December 10, 1990. By the same token, the Carrier's reliance upon Sections IV(b) and (d) support its position. Form 1 Award No. 31981
Under the Carrier's theory, Claimant was obligated to be available for service; he was called and he missed that call, thereby permitting the charging of eight hours against Claimant's 40 hour guarantee.
Under a literal reading of the language relied upon by the parties, both interpretations make sense. If that was all that was present in this record, we would deny the claim because the burden is on the Organization to substantiate all elements of its claim and conflicting interpretations would not satisfy that burden. But, there is more.
The clear import of that statement is that the Carrier had not applied the Rules of the Guaranteed Extra Boards in this fashion in the past to an employee who assumed a hold down position and who missed a call on that position's rest day. The Carrier did not refute that statement-either to show that the provisions have been applied consistent with its position or to state that the circumstance never came up. Any such rebuttal is missing from this record. Under the circumstances of this case, we must therefore find the Organization's unrefuted assertion to amount to establishment of a practice which explains the ambiguous language as it applies to the reduction of the 40 hour guarantee for Guaranteed Extra Board employees who assume hold down positions and who miss calls for work on that position's rest days. Given what is before us in this case, we shag therefore sustain the claim.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the ward effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.