PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 239
 (Clerks' Board, St. Louis, Missouri)

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILI'JAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
 EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES -

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:















OPINION OF BOARD:

 Robert C. Layman, seniority dates of March 26, 1951, Class "All and March 8, 1951, Class 1tB72 on the Kansas City Terminal Station and Yards consolidated ;7A7P and ?oB27 seniority roster was, on the claimed dates, July 22, 23 and 24, 1957, the regularly assigned occupant of position of Relief Interchange Clerk, rate $16.62 per day, and his assigned hours and location of work on each of three claimed dates were as follows:
                                            Award No. 18


            Topping Avenue Yard, Monday, July 22, 1957 -

            Relief Interchange Clerk, rate $16.62, 7 AM to 3 PM,


            Topping Avenue Yard, Tuesday, July 23, 1957 -

            Relief Interchange Clerk, rate X16.62, 7 AM to 3 PM,


            West End Yard, Wednesday, July 24, 1957 - Relief Interchange Clerk, rate $16.62, 3 PM to 11 PM.


Topping Avenue Yard Office is located in Kansas City Terminal at a point commonly referred to as ~oEast Bottoms - Topping Avenue,v? about two miles east of West End Yard Office, which, in turn, is located at a point on Nicholson Avenue at Monroe Street.

        On July 22, 1957, claimant, by proper notice, was instructed as follows:


    "You arrange to work the second trick Power Clerk 3P to 11P three daysJuly 22, 23 and 24.


    ~7You are being moved under the provisions of Rule 9B.'p


Claimant complied with the instructions as given. On two of the days in question he worked the second shift Power Clerk position starting to work at 3 PM which for those two days, was the normal quitting time on his regular position. On the third day he worked his regular hours, but at a different location than the one for his assignment. He claims he was mishandled under the terms of Rule 9(b) which is relied upon by Carrier as authority for the questioned move.

        Rule 9(b) provides as follows:


    I1Ldhen a temporary vacancy is not filled under the provisions of Section (a) of this rule and such vacancy cannot be filled by qualified available extra or furloughed employe, the Carrier may move an assigned employe from his regular position. If necessary to move a regular assigned employe, first selection will be made from the junior qualified employes working in the same location or office whose hours are substantially the same and whose rest days are the same, and such junior employe will be required to protect the work. He will be returned to his regular position as soon as a qualified extra or furloughed employe becomes available. This will not be considered as suspension from work under Section (f) of Rule 25.


    ;?The assigned rest day of the employe moved will follow such employe on the temporary vacancy, and if required to work his regular assigned rest day, or days, he shall be paid therefor at the rate of time and one-half, but if required to work the rest day, or days, of the position temporarily filled, and it is other than his regular assigned rest day, or days, he will be paid therefor at the pro rata rate because he is not working his own rest day, or days.rP


                          - 2-

                · i


                                          S'f3A 239

                                          AwardNo. 18


        The Employes rely upon one sentence of the rule which provides:


    3Tf necessary to move a regular assigned employe, firstselection will be made from the junior qualified employes working in the same location or office whose hours are substantially the same and whose rest days are the same, and such junior employe will be required to protect the work.77


Carrier sees some conflict between that sentence and the last paragraph of the rule. Additionally, Carrier makes the point that the words relied upon by the Employes include the expression, '?first selection', thereupon implying more than one possible choice. Carrier insists the rule empowers it to select an employe whose hours of assignment and best days are not the same for work at a different location, if there is none among the junior qualified employes m rking in the same location or office with hours the same.

 The language of the rule is clouded in ambiguity and its intent is obscure, but we see nothing herein to clearly point up a violation in dealing with the claim of a Relief Clerk who works odd hours and at different locations as a usual thing in connection with his regular assignment, and who, in the instant case, worked two days in the same location or office at hours the same as on another day of his regular assignment; and who, on the third day clamed, worked his usual hours in familiar but different surroundings for that day of his regular assignment.

 FMMS:

 The Board, after oral hearing, and upon the record and all the evidence, finals and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended;

 That jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein has been conferred upon this Board by special agreement, and

 That the Agreement by and between the parties to this dispute was not violated.

                          AWARD


        Claim denied.


                              SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 239


Is/ A. Langley Coffee
 A. Langley Coffey, Chairman
 G. W. Johnson
 Employer Member
 Dated at St. Louis, Missouri, /s/ Frank D. Lupton
 this 21st day of July, 1959. Employe Member

                            -3-