practice is uncontroverted and must control if it be determined that a decision in this case rests on a construction or interpretation of Rule 4 "Emergency Service."

CONCLUSION:

The carrier's position in this case may be summed up as follows:

1. The statement of employes' claim, reading "* * * shall employes who are required to work continuous overtime be paid a minimum of one hour at overtime rates?" falls squarely within the language of Paragraph (a) of Rule 3, "Overtime", which reads:

"(a) All overtime continuous with regular bulletined hours will be paid for at the rate of time and one-half uqtil relieved, except as may be provided in rules hereinafter set out."

Accordingly, in the specific claim progressed on the property the employes would be entitled to nine minutes' pay for the six minutes' delay.

2. Since no emergency situation was discussed in the conferences on this claim, and since no showing of an emergency is made in the statement of employes' claim except inferentially by recital of Rule 4, "Emergency Service", Rule 3 (a) must control in the instant case. To hold otherwise would render Rule 3 (a) meaningless.

3. Even if it were determined that the first paragraph of Rule 4, "Emergency Service", were controlling in the instant case (which position the carrier contends is entirely unwarranted) a careful reading of the first paragraph of rule 4 discloses that the words "a minimum of one hour" mean "a minimum of one hour at pro rata rate." Since the words "at punitive rate" are not expressed in paragraph 1, a fair construction of the rule should not imply the penalty.

4. If the first paragraph of Rule 4 should be considered ambiguous, the only evidence submitted in this case which might furnish a guide as to the proper interpretation of the rule is that of the recognized and established practice of paying employes one hour at pro rata rate for work performed continuous with regular working hours, not exceeding forty minutes; however, if carrier's contention that Rule 3 (a) is controlling is sustained, neither the past practice of payment in similar cases nor carrier's offer of settlement in the instant case on the basis of that past practice would govern. In other words, carrier's position in this case is premised on a proper application of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 3 (a); and what has been argued in carrier's position with reference to Rule 4 and its interpretation is presented only if this Division deems that Rule 4 is pertinent to the issue here presented.

It is therefore respectfully submitted that the claim must be denied.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

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

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Rule 4 of the controlling agreement provides "For continuous service after regular working hours, employes will be paid time and one-half on the

AWARD