ment. It is clearly not in the province or the power of the Adjustment Board to release employes, by interpretation of the Agreement, from the provisions of the rules agreement.

It should be observed from carrier's Exhibit A that after carrier's letter of November 5, 1951, employes allowed this dispute to lie dormant and to all intents abandoned until conference of March 24, 1953, a period of some seventeen months. The Railway Labor Act provides for the prompt and orderly settlement of disputes. In Third Division Award 4941 the Board said, "The expeditious handling of claims and grievances, as required by the Railway Labor Act, requires that a final determination of a dispute by a Carrier's highest officer designated to hear such matters becomes final unless an appeal is taken within a reasonable time thereafter." In Third Division Award 5389 the Board said, "The incidents involved in this case date back to May of 1946. The record shows that the Employes waited more than 18 months after the Carrier's decision to advance its claims. While we are not disposed under the circumstances of this case to invoke the doctrine of laches, we believe that the delay is significant. To us it shows a lack of real confidence in the claim and supports our conclusions that the claim is without merit." Carrier contends that the long delay denotes that it is completely unjustified and without merit.

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.

The Electrical Workers of System Federation No. 99 contend carrier violated its agreement with them when it failed to pay linemen compensation, as provided by Rule 67 of their agreement, for rest days and holidays, since September 1, 1949, when they were required to stand by for service and were available therefore by reason of the requirements of Rule 65. They ask that carrier be ordered to compensate all linemen who were available on their rest days and holidays, and not paid, for standby service. The claim is made retroactive to September 1, 1949.

While these rules were amended, effective September 1, 1949 when the forty-hour work week was put into effect, such changes did not affect the substance thereof. The changes were to substitute "Rest Days" for "Sundays" and the compensation from $1.25 to $2.27. We here quote the rules as amended.

Rule 65. Leave of Absence on Holidays and Rest Days.

"Employes who are subject to call because of the requirements of the service, will notify office or officer designated by the Management where they may be called and will respond promptly when called. When such employes desire to leave headquarters or sections they will secure authority from officer designated by the Management, who will grant permission if requirements of the service will permit."

Rule 67. Standby Time.

"Linemen on telegraph and telephone work who are required to be available for duty on rest days and holidays and are not paid

for these days except when actual service is performed, will be allowed two dollars and twenty seven cents ($2.27) for each rest day and the seven recognized holidays."

Under Rule 67 linemen assigned to telegraph and telephone work, who are required to be available for duty on rest days and holidays for standby service and who are not called to actually perform service on such days, are entitled to be paid the sum of $2.27 for each of such days they are required to standby and be available for that purpose. Rule 67 is a pay rule and the question is, when is a lineman "required to be available for duty on rest days and holidays" within the meaning thereof? Carrier says there are two situations to which Rule 67 applies: First, when such employes are specifically required to be available for duty on rest days and holidays by order of the carrier and do not actually perform any service; and Second, if they make request to leave their headquarters or sections, as Rule 65 provides they may, and such request is refused. The organization contends Rule 65 requires employes covered thereby to be available for duty on rest days and holidays unless they ask and are given permission by carrier to leave their headquarters or sections on those days.

Rule 65 applies to employes who are subject to call because of the requirements of the service. Admittedly it is the duty of section linemen to protect carrier's telephone and telegraph service. The claimants are therefore subject to call on their rest days, unless permission has been given them by management to absent themselves from their headquarters or sections, and must respond promptly when called. All rules of a collective bargaining agreement relating to the same subject matter must be read and construed together in order to get the true intent and meaning thereof. There is no question but what Rule 65 requires these claimants, within the meaning of Rule 67, to be available for duty on their rest days and on holidays unless given permission by carrier to absent themselves therefrom. They are, by the provisions of Rule 65, required to be available for duty on their rest days and on holidays just as much as if specifically called by carrier for that purpose. In this respect it should be remembered that if they are actually called for service and work on any of these days the pay for standby service is not applicable. See Rule 67.

We think the organization's contention to be correct. It is apparent, from the record, that up until September 1, 1949 that is the manner in which carrier applied these rules. It has only been since the advent of the forty-hour week that carrier has sought to apply these rules in accordance with its present position. But rules of the agreement can only be revised or changed in the manner set forth in Rule 69 and not by the unilateral action of either party.

Other contentions are made by carrier. Carrier is in error when it says that at no time while the claim was being handled on the property was there a claim made for compensation. The record shows time claims for standby service were made on the property.

Carrier also says the claim should not be allowed because the organization took such a long time to appeal to this Division, that is from November 5, 1951 to March 24, 1953. While the Railway abor Act contemplates that disputes shall be handled in a prompt and orderly manner those who enacted it did not see fit to put a time limit therein within which an appeal must be taken. In the absence thereof we cannot deny a claim solely on that basis unless, because of such delay, injury or damage will be caused thereby. Carrier cannot very well contend it can be injured and damaged by an order requiring it to meet the obligations of an agreement which it has made. If the requirements of Rule 65 are no longer needed to satisfactorily meet carrier's operational requirements the only way it can get relief therefrom is by the orderly procedures referred to in Rule 69. We have neither the authority nor the right to do it by an award.

AWARD