"1. Rule 10 does not cover the present dispute. When the claimant made the actual displacement for which claim is made, claimant no longer held a position on a shift from which a change could be made. Therefore, claimant was not changed from one shift to another.

2. Rule 10 contemplates a temporary transfer from one position to another and provides overtime when the transfer is made and when the employe returns to his regular position. Such was not the case in the present dispute. The employe was not temporarily transferred. ,He was displaced and upon exercising his own displacement rights, he exercised his seniority to a new permanent assignment. No change was made by the carrier for its benefit. The claimant, after having been displaced, took the position to which his seniority entitled him. The fact that he accepted service on a shift different than that formerly held by him was the result of action of the employe, by the employe, and for the employe.

3. The past practice on the property since Rules 10 and 18 were made effective on May 1, 1942, as attested to by Exhibits A to D, solve the possible question of any ambiguity in the rules by reflecting the practice of the parties in interpreting the agreement in this regard."

Any action other than denial of this claim by the Board would have the effect of adding new rules to the agreement, which is beyond the province of the Board.

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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Following carrier's uncontested abolishment of a coach cleaner's position, the employe who had occupied said position disputed claimant, a junior employe on the same (first) shift. Claimant then exercised his own seniority to displace an employe junior to him on the third shift. There was no first shift junior employe that he could have displaced.

Petitioner contends that, under the provisions of the first sentence of Rule 10, claimant should have been paid at the overtime rate for the first eight hours he worked on his new shift. Neither of the exceptions contained in the third sentence of the Rule applies here, in the view of petitioner.

Carrier argues that no part of Rule 10 is applicable, because (1) after being displaced, claimant had no shift or position from which to be changed; and (2) he moved as a result of exercising the rights given him by Rule 18. Rule 10, says carrier, was by negotiation and by subsequent practice intended to protect employes from abuse of carrier's right to move employes temporarily from one shift to another and back; it was not intended to govern movement like the one here at issue.

Study of the Rule's language and of the record here compels the Division to hold here with carrier. This ruling is in harmony with those set forth in Awards 1816, 2067, and 2224.

AWARD