the Reading Company by an engine service employe. This conference extended from 2:00 P.M. until 3:20 P.M. For their attendance at this conference, claimants were paid for service performed on their regular assignment at Bridgeport, Pa., plus time lost at home station or a total of eight hours at straight time rate plus $1.50 expense for lunch.

In the progression of this case on the property, the brotherhood contended that second paragraph of Rule 24 of the effective agreement was applicable and supported the claim as presented.

The carrier does not agree with the contention of the employes and submits that Rule 24 reads as follows:

"When by request of the Company, employes are used as witnesses at inquests or in suits brought or defended by the Company or other Company business, they will be furnished transportation, and will be allowed pay for time lost at home station plus legitimate expenses; all witnesses' fees to accrue to the Company.

When summoned to attend Company's investigation in which they are not directly involved, they will be paid on the same basis; if required to report outside of regular bulletined hours they will be paid as per Rule ?."

It is the position of the carrier that first paragraph of Rule 24 is applicable and controlling in the instant case. Claimants Jeffers and Wagner attended pre-trial conference in their capacity as witnesses in suit defended by the company. Accordingly, they were properly allowed pay for time lost at home station plus legitimate expenses as clearly provided in first paragraph of Rule 24 above quoted.

The carrier maintains that claimants were not summoned to attend company's investigation in which they were not directly involved, nor were they required to report outside of regular bulletined hours. They reported at pretrial conference at 2:00 P.M. which was within the bulletined hours of their regular assignments. Therefore, the contention of the employes that second paragraph of Rule 24 is applicable and controlling is contrary to the clear language and intent of the rule and is without merit or support.

Carrier submits claimants were furnished free transportation from Bridgeport, Pa., to Philadelphia, Pa., and return on April 12, 1956. Furthermore, there is no provision in Rule 24 of the effective agreement for the payment of travel time as here claimed by the employes. The rule is completely silent with respect to travel time. The carrier submits it is well established that your Board is not empowered to write a rule into an agreement where none exists. Accordingly, carrier maintains that claim for travel time as here presented is without merit and should not be considered by the Board.

Under the facts and circumstances, carrier maintains that claimants Jeffers and Wagner were properly compensated for attending pre-trial conference on April 12, 1956 in accordance with the applicable rules of the effective agreement and claim as here presented is without merit and unjustified and requests that same be denied in its entirety.

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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

It is contended that the claimants are entitled to be paid for April 12, 1956 under the second paragraph of Rule 24, which applies to employes "When summoned to attend Company's investigation in which they are not involved". The term investigation is well understood in this industry and it is obvious that these claimants were not summoned to attend an investigation but were used as witnesses in connection with a pending court case.

AWARD