COPY
 ORG. FILE 10-53
 CARRIER FILE 1.1.10-126-28 AWARD N0. 14
 NRAB FILE CL-7676 CASE NO. 14



DISPUTE The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (a) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement and the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 19111, when they failed to allow Receiving-Delivery and Interchange Clerk, A. L. Barton, Position 1860, E1 Paso Transfer Station, El Paso, Texas, vacation compensation based on the straight time and overtime work of his respective assignment; and,

 (b) Receiving-Delivery a.ni Interchange Clerk A. L. Barton, Position 1860, El Paso Transfer Static::., El Paso, Texas, be paid the difference between what he did receive as a vacation allowance in the year 1952, and what he should have received had the wertime work assigned to his position been included in 'he Vacation allowance.

The Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended.

The Carrier paid Claimant vacation compensation cased on straight time and he claims that the compensation should have been based on overtime also.



The interpretation placed on Article 7 (a) by the parties on June 10, 1942 reads:


It is the position of the Organization that the overtime paid on Claimant's position was part of the daily compensation paid by the Carrier for the assignment within the meaning of the rule; and that the overtime was neither casual nor unassigned within the meaning of the interpretation.

 The position in question was Receiving-Delivery and Interchange Clerk at El Paso Transfer Station assigned to work 9 AM to 6 PM (with one hour meal period) Monday through Friday with no relief provided Saturdays and Sundays.






The compensation paid to the vacation relief clerk during Claimants vacation amounted to $316.54; and the vacation compensation paid to Claimant amounted to $746.80. The vacation relief clerk worked overtime as follows:

















It thus appears that the vacation relief clerk worked overtime on all assigned days with a minimum of 21401' and a maximum of 6120'1 and on the two Saturdays 11130° and 914011. For -the thirty day period prior to taking his vacation Claimant worked overture on all assigned days with a minimum of 40" and a maximum of 2140"; on all. cf the Saturdays faith a minimum of 810011 and a maximum of 9'40'1; and on two cut of five Sundays 210011 and 314011.

 Daring the calendar year 1952 prior to July 1 Claimant worked every Saturday and worked overtime on all but 11 of his assigned days. During the calendar year 1951 Claimant worked every Sates day except one and m rked overtime on all but 100 of his assigned days.


First. Claimant was certainly worsc off while on vacation as to the daily compensation paid than if he had -retained at work; and the overtime was assigned, but not for specific perio,'s of t:u,a nor for the performance of a specific duty which could be performed only outside of regular assigned hours such as meeting a train that regularly arrived outside of the regular assigned hours (see Award 5750). The assignment amounted to standing instructions to work such overtime as was necessary to complete the daily duties of the position with a renewal of these instructions each Friday for Saturday overtime when necessary.

 The essential question presented by the claim is whether the overtime was 11casual or unassigned" within the meaning of the interpretation.

 Second. It is well settled by a number of Third Division Awards that overtime is casual when, regardless of regularity, its duraticm depends upon service requirements which vary from day to day and the assignment, whether verbal or written., does not specify regular fixed periods of overtime (Awards 4498, 1+510, 5001 and 6731). The overtime worked by this position has occurred with impressive if not complete regularity but, under the tests laid down by the foregoing awards, the overtime was casual because it depended entirely upon fluctuating daily service requirements.

                    Claim denied.


                  /s/ Huber+ Wyckoff

                  Chain. an


/s/ F. D. Comer /s/ W. Ray Clark
 Carrier Member Employs Member

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, October 7, 1959.

 _ o