Friday. Moreover, it asserted that the Carrier failed to demonstrate that operational necessity warranted the establishment of seven-day positions. In addition, the Organization argued that the Carrier established the new positions without first contacting the General Chairman to explain the Carrier's operational need for the positions.

In denying the claims, the Carrier contended that the positions to which the Claimants exercised seniority were properly established in accordance with Rule 10. The Carrier maintained that it had legitimate operational reasons for establishing the seven day positions. It noted that the railroad is in operation seven days per week and the Albany Division, which has the highest amount of snowfall of all divisions, clearly needed a seven-day operation for snow and ice removal, as well as to perform track inspections, repairs and other maintenance work that cannot wait until Monday. The Carrier acknowledged that such work had previously been performed on an overtime basis, stating in its February 12, 1998 letter to the Organization that "overtime is a legitimate business reason. It was not the only reason for a seven-day operation but it was a consideration." The Carrier further maintained that, even though it was not contractually obligated to do so, it met with the General Chairman on February 10,1997 to explain the reasons for the operational change.

The Carrier also raised several procedural arguments which must be disposed of before proceeding to the merits of the case. First, it argued that this matter was a duplication of a prior claim which was denied and not progressed further on the property. While we agree that the Board should not have to repeatedly adjudicate the same dispute and that pyramiding, compounding and duplicating of claims is generally not permitted, there is no probative evidence that this occurred here. In the prior case, the Carrier denied the claim in part on the basis that it was vague and had no named Claimants. The Organization then submitted the instant claim with the Claimants named herein and with specific requests for monetary remedies which had not been previously asserted. Given these distinguishing characteristics, we cannot say that identical claims have been progressed so as to preclude our consideration of the matter at hand.

Similarly unpersuasive is the Carrier's assertion that the Claimants bid on and were awarded an assignment with the full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the position. The Carrier contends that the Claimants knew the assignments in dispute had other than Saturday and Sunday rest days and should not now be heard to protest or

object to the work schedules of the jobs they voluntarily sought. While there is a division of authority on this particular point, we conclude that the better reasoned view is that the Organization, as the party asserting the claim, retained the right to protest an alleged violation of the Agreement. No acquiescence can be found simply by virtue of the fact that the positions were bid on and awarded. On the contrary, under Rule 10(g), the parties have specifically recognized that a dispute regarding such assignments may be progressed. Compare, Third Division Awards 31242 and 29542.

The final procedural argument advanced by the Carrier is also without merit. The Carrier objected to the introduction of certain correspondence submitted after the Senior Director's denial letter following conference. Certainly, it is in both parties' best interests to make sure that all pertinent issues are joined as soon as practicable. However, it is well established that the Board may properly consider evidence in the record which was exchanged prior to the time a party files a Notice of Intent with the Board. See, Third Division Award 33998.

Turning to the merits, the pertinent contractual provision is Rule 10 - 40 Hour Work Week, and it states in pertinent part as follows:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Company will establish for all employees a work week of forty (40) hours, consisting of five (5) days of eight (8) hours each, with two (2) consecutive days off in each seven (7). The work week may be staggered in accordance with the Company's operational requirements. So far as practicable the days off shall be Saturday and Sunday. The foregoing work week is subject to the following provisions of this Rule:

(b) The expressions `positions' and `work,' as used in this Rule, refer to services, duties or operations necessary to be performed the specified number of days per week, and not to the work week of individual employees.

(c) On positions the duties of which can reasonably be met in five (5) days, the days off will be Saturday and Sunday.

"These early cases laid down the guiding principle, followed in all of the better-reasoned cases decided in the last 40 years, that the language appearing in Rule 15(a) and (b) creates a rebuttable presumption that existing five-day operations staffed by positions with a Monday-Friday work week and Saturday-Sunday rest days should not unilaterally be changed to seven-day operations with other than Saturday-Sunday rest days. A Carrier invoking the language of Rule 15(a) and (d) to alter this status quo and justify implementing such a change from five-day Monday through Friday positions to seven-day positions with other than SaturdaySunday rest days, bears the producing clear and convincing evidence of necessity due to a material change of operational requirements, i.e., a bona fide operational need to make the change."

and convincing evidence of operational necessity had been produced on that record, according to the Board.

We find that similar circumstances dictate the same outcome in the instant case. No evidence was adduced that new operational problems had arisen which justified the institution of seven-day positions at the Selkirk and Dewitt yards. The Carrier's primary reason to justify the change was a need to deal with the snow on a 24/7 basis. However, before as well as after the seven-day assignments, the work was performed Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. While snow removal, repair and maintenance work was done on those days, it was on an overtime basis.

Moreover, while the avoidance of overtime appears to be a genuine Carrier concern, the Board in a majority of cases has consistently rejected the idea that avoidance of overtime amounts to an "operational necessity" sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of a Monday through Friday schedule. See, Third Division. Awards 6695, 7370, 14098, 17343, 19622 and 35564 and Special Board of Adjustment No. 1107, Award 1.

Given this history, we find that the record does not support the conclusion that material operational changes necessitated the change in the workweek. Accordingly, the claim must be sustained. As remedy for the Rule 10 violation, it is the Board's intent to provide a make-whole remedy, to put the Claimants in the position they would have been in had it not been for the contractual violation. Had the Claimants been properly assigned, they would have received time and one-half for any Saturday or Sunday on which they worked. Thus, the Claimants are entitled to be compensated for each Saturday and Sunday they worked from the date they began the improper assignments until the positions ended. The Organization has failed to demonstrate, however, whether the Claimants ever worked on a rest day, and, if so, how often. Absent such a showing, there is no basis for the Board to award additional straight time compensation for "lost work opportunities" on Thursdays and Fridays during the period in question. See Third Division Awards 32795 and 35564. The Carrier is further directed to compensate Claimant Zimmerman for eight hours' pay at the appropriate rate of pay for the vacation day he observed on February 5, 1997 due to the abolishment of his position.

AWARD