actually earned during period of discharge or suspension from the carrier's service. The carrier's position in this respect is sustained by numerous awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, some of which are as follows:

In Second Division Award 1638, with Referee Edward F. Carter, statement is made under "Findings" as follows:

"Whatever the method of calculating the compensation may be, a deduction of outside earnings is required. . ."

In First Division Award 15765, with Referee Edward F. Carter, statement is made under "Findings" in part as follows:

"Claimant is therefore entitled to recover the amount he would have received as wages had the contract been performed from July 12, 1950 to December 19, 1950, less what he earned in other employment during that period, or what he might by reasonable diligence have earned in other employment during such period".

This position is also sustained by First Division Award 15258, with Referee Curtis W. Roll, rendered on January 26, 1954, wherein it was ruled that outside earnings would be deducted when payment is made for wage loss. In this connection also see First Division Award 16558.

The carrier therefore asserts that in the event the Board considers the matter of compensation to the claimant for time lost, it is incumbent upon the Board to follow the logical and established principle set forth above and require that any and all earnings by the claimant during the period for which compensation is claimed be deducted.

CONCLUSION: Having conclusively established that the claim in this docket is without merit, carrier respectfully submits that it 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.

A similar claim arising out of the same circumstances was disposed of by our Award No. 2532. The only difference being that the claimant there was asleep in the carman's shanty whereas this claimant was asleep in an R.P.O. car. That appears to be a difference without a distinction because both were in the immediate vicinity of the track on which the cars were expected upon which they were next assigned to perform service.

There cannot be any condonation of loafing or sleeping while on duty. However, the abrupt change in policy, instituted by the new superintendent of the terminal, without notice to the employes or their supervisors renders discharge an excessive, arbitrary and capricious penalty. To that extent our former findings are confirmed.

AWARD