(a) The Carrier violated the TCU/NRPC NEC Clerical Agreement in particular Rules 4-A-1, Appendix E, Extra List Agreement and others when it called and used an unqualified employee, Dorothy Trower to work eight (8) hours at the overtime rate as an Assignment Clerk on Saturday, September 2, 1995, at Philadelphia, PA, 30th Street Station. Ms. Trower is assigned to a Verification Clerk position and never worked or qualified as an Assignment Clerk. The Carrier failed to call and use Andrew Felden who had held and qualified on an Assignment Clerk position. Felden was qualified and available and had notified the department of his availability and telephone number.

(b) Claimant A. Felden now be allowed eight (8) hours pay at the overtime rate for September 2,1995, when the above mentioned agreement was violated.

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

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

At issue in this case is application of Rule 4-A-1 -- Day's Work and Overtime -at paragraph (f), and Article 7 (A) of Appendix E. Those provisions read as follows:

"4-A-1 (f) Where work is required by the Corporation to be performed on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise not have forty (40) hours of work that week; in all other cases by the regular employe.

Article 7(A) In the event a vacancy cannot be filled under Article (S) and (6) above, the overtime will then be offered to the senior, qualified, available regular or extra clerk from those areas covered in Article (1) of this Agreement who have made application for same."

It is the position of the Organization that Claimant met the criteria in Part 4-A-1 (f) because he was the senior qualified available employee at the location requiring the use of an overtime employee. Moreover, the Organization maintains that he also met the criteria set forth in Article 7, (A), because, in the absence of an Extra List Agreement, and there is not one at this location, he was the senior qualified available employee who had made written application for overtime work.

The Carrier asserts that it complied with all the provisions of the Agreement. It notes that Claimant was not assigned to the office where the overtime work was necessary and had no demand right to it. Since Claimant was not assigned to the office where the overtime work was necessary, he had no demand right to it.

Throughout the correspondence on the property it is clear that the Claimant was both the most senior available employee and was qualified to perform the work at issue. The language of Article 7(A) is clear: in the absence of an existing Extra Board, work

must be offered to the most senior, qualified, available employee. In this particular case, moreover, Carrier has confirmed in its correspondence that the work was normally performed by Assignment Clerks. Claimant was qualified as an Assignment Clerk and, although he was listed on the Extra List at the Block Operator's office on the date of the claim, there was no work for him on the date at issue.

The Organization has not shown, however, that Claimant was eligible for overtime or penalty pay. On the contrary, since the record indicates that he had not completed 40 hours in the week in question, the pay rate at which he properly would have been paid is the pro rata rate. The Board will not ignore long standing tradition on this and other boards and grant Claimant a "windfall" beyond what would have been his proper rate of pay on the date at issue.