PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF RAID1AY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
 FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION Fi.PLOYES
 and
 THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
 AWARD IN DOCKET NO. 49

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

 (a) Carrier violated the Rules of the Clerkst Agreement when it failed to bulletin the positions of Outbound Clerk., Checker, Chalker, Weighmaster and two Bill Clerks at the Keyser, W. Va., Hump Yard and Scale Office promptly upon establishment on August 23, 1956, and

 (b) Carrier further violated said Agreement when it discontinued such positions at intervals for periods of less than seven (7) calendar days duration, and

 (c) Carrier now be required to pay each of the following claimants one minimum day for each date claimed on.~,nd after August 27, 1956, until the violation ceases:








FINDINGS:

 Six regulary assigned positions constituting the third trick clerical force at Keyser, West Virginia, were abolished. Beginning August 23, 1956 the positions were worked on an extra basis. On November 12, 1956 the positions were placed on bulletin. This claim is based upon the assertin that during the period August 23, 1956 to November 12, 1956, the Carrier should have re-established the positions involved on a regularly assigned basis.

 The employes cite Rule 14 (Guarantee) and Rule 31 (Bulletining) in support of this claim.

 The Carrier asserts that Rule 31(b) (Bulletins) carries with it the presumption that positions which are required to be bulletined will be regular positions of some duration rather than extra positions worked solely to meet a fluctuating need.

 The record reveals that the six regularly assigned positions were abolished on June 29, 1946. No question is raised about the bonafide nature of that abolition,

The fact that there are provisions in Rule 37 governing the caorking of extra employes indicates that the Agreement contemplates that not all work accruing to the employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement must be performed only by regularly assigned employes. Hence, it is clear that the mere fact that certain work was performed for eight hours on a given day would not necessarily require that such work be bulletined as a regular assignment, Rule 14 (Guarantee) and Rule 31(h) when considered together clearly carry the necessary implication that when it is reasonably anticipated that work will be constantly recurring and will be required to be performed on a regular daily basis, the Carrier must establish a regular position which much be bulletined and to which the five day a week guarantee provided for in Rule 14 would attach. To hold otherwise would render both rules meaningless.

 Except for rules governing employment of platform forces, none of the rules cited and none which we can find carry a definitive formula for determining when a position must be considered as regularly assigned. It would appear, therefore, that initially it would be a matter for Carriers discretion as to when given work should be assigned on a regular basis, subject to the reasonable restrictions implied from Rules 14 and 31. This Board is not empowered to write-rules-and, accordingly, cannot prescribe any formula for requiring the establishment of _ regular assignments. In the instant case, it is shown that commencing with the-, week beginning Sunday, September 23, 1956, and continuing through the week ending Saturday, November 10, 1956, a period of seven weeks the positions were worked four and five days each week. For the period August 23, 1956-'to September 23,. 1956 it is shown that the positions were worked three days ~n two of the five-,weeks involved, six days in another week and five and four days in the_other two weeks. It is only reasonable to assume that after five suclweeks_o-experience, the Carrier should have anticipated that the work would be constantly-.recurring and would be required to be performed on a regular daily basis. It does appear, therefore, that the Carrier waited an unreasonably lengthy time before it bulletined the positions. A reasonable point in time at which the Carrier should have bulletined the positions would appear to be for the week commencing September 23. The claim will, therefore, be sustained as made for each day less than five that the positions were not worked in each week commencing with the week beginning September 23, 1956 until November 12, 1956 when the positions were bulletined,

                          AWARD


    Claim disposed of as indicated in Findings.


                    /s/ Francis J. Robertson

                    Cairman


    /s/ E. J. Roffman /~ T. S. Woods

    Employee Member Carrier Member


    Dated at Baltimore, Maryland this 27th day of August, 1959.