The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:










EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman E. P. Fee, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, regularly assigned on the repair track, Springfield, Illinois, from 7 A. M. to 3 P. M., Tuesday through Saturday, with rest days of Sunday and Monday, was instructed by the foreman to report for work May 14, Thursday, on the 11 P. M. to 7 A. M. shift to fill in for Car Inspector J. F. Brown, while he was off on his annual earned vacation. The claimant returned to his regular assigned job on the 7 A. M. to 3 P. M. shift, Wednesday, May 20, 1953.


The carrier has declined to adjust this dispute on a basis satisfactory to the employes.


The agreement effective April 1, 1935, as subsequently amended is controlling.


POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that when the claimant changed from working his regular assigned shift hours of 7 A. M. to 3 P. M., to the shift hours of 11 P. M. to 7 A. M., on Thursday, May 14, in compliance with instructions of the foreman, he was entitled to be compensated for the hours 11 P. M. to 7 A. M., on Thursday, May 14, under the clear and unambiguous provisions of Rule 14, which in pertinent part reads as follows:





2454-13 53
 is to be assumed that parties to a contract know best what was
 meant by its terms and are the least likely to be mistaken as to its
 intention; that each party is alert to protect his own interests and to
 insist on his rights; and that whatever is done by the parties during
 the period of the performance of the contract is done under its terms
 as they understood and intended it should be. Parties are far less
 likely to have been mistaken as to the meaning of their contract
 during the period when they are in harmony and practical interpreta
 tion reflects that meaning than when subsequent differences have im
 pelled them to resort to law and one of them then seeks an interpreta
 tion at variance with their practical interpretation of its provi
 sions . . ."

It is clear that the mutual construction given by the parties to the whole agreement, including the Vacation Agreement, over a period of almost twelve years should have been accepted by the Board as evidence of the proper interpretation of the agreement. The findings of the Board in Awards 1806 and 1807 were fundamentally wrong and should not be followed as a precedent.


There is no basis for the claim in this dispute, and it should 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.



Disposition of this claim is governed by our Award No. 2440 Docket No. 1996.






Executive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of June, 1957.


We are constrained to dissent from the majority findings in the aboveenumerated awards for the reasons set forth in our dissents to Awards Nos. 2083, 2084, 2197, 2205, 2230, and 2243.


It is our considered opinion that Awards Nos. 1514, 1806, and 1807 of the Second Division should have been followed and the overtime rates embodied in the schedule agreements should have been applied.







                          Edward W. Wiesner


                          James B. Zink