The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in ad
dition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carmen C. G. Green, C. J. Restoff, and W. A. Triplett, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, regularly aligned to work on the repair track, E. St. Louis, Illinois, from 7 :30 A. M. to 3:30 P. M., Monday through Friday, with rest days of Saturday and Sunday, were instructed by the foreman to relieve train yard car inspectors who were off on their annual earned vacation on the following dates and shifts, and the claimants returned to their regular assigned position on repair tracks as shown below
most twevle 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.
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 ).
DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS TO AWARDS NOS. 2440, 2441,
2442, 2443, 2444, 2445, 2446, 2447, 2448, 2449, 2450, 2451,
2452, 2453, 2454, 2455. 2456, 2457, 2504.
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.