obviously illogical, absurd and wholly unsupported by any language in the agreement.

7. The carrier's interpretation of Rules 22(a) and 22(b) is supported by past practice, and the failure of the organization to appeal the decisions of the carrier which rejected previous attempts by this organization to change the application of those rules.

8. Award No. 1637 of this Board, involving rules, facts and issues directly in point, supports the carrier's position and should be followed in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the carrier respectfully requests that the claims of the employes 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimants are Carmen employed by Carrier at Great Falls, Montana, with a regular assignment of 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. M.

On March 13, 1961, Claimants were instructed to proceed by company truck to Hedgesville, Montana to rewheel a car. They were further instructed that if they could not return to Great Falls by their quitting time, to proceed to Harlowtown and tie up for the night and return to Great Falls during their working hours the following day.

Claimants finished their work at Hedgesville at 3:30 P. M., and proceeded to Harlowtown for the night, leaving there for Great Falls the following morning at 7 :30 A. M.

Rule 22 (a) of the controlling agreement reads as follows:

"Other than provided in paragraph (b) of this rule, an employee regularly assigned to work at a shop, enginehouse, repair track of inspection point, when called for emergency road work away from such point, will be paid for all time from time ordered to leave home station until his return as follows: for all time waiting or travelling, straight time rate during home point working hours, time and one-half during home point overtime hours; for all time working, straight time rate during home point working hours, overtime rate as per Rule 17 during home point overtime hours."

Rule 22 (b) reads in part as follows:

"If, during the time on the road, a man is relieved from duty and permitted to go to bed for five (5) or more hours, such relief

will not be paid for; provided that, in .no case shall he be paid for a total of less than eight (8) hours each calendar day, when such irregular service prevents the employee from working his regular daily hours at home station. * * *."

It is Carrier's position that the time claimed by the Employes herein was time relieved from duty within the meaning of Rule 22 (b).

It is the Employes' contention that the time during which they were tied up at Harlowtown was "waiting time" within the terms of Rule 22 (a), since the work which they were sent out to perform had been completed, and thus this could not be considered as time relieved from duty within the meaning of Rule 22 (b).

We have had occasion to consider this identical situation on this same Carrier and with the same organization in prior Awards. (See our Awards. numbered 4269, 4270, 4271, 4272, 4273, 4275, 4382 and 083.)

Because of dissenting opinions in the above named Awards, we have again carefully examined them and the pertinent Rules, as well as our Award No. 1637.

In Award 1637 we said:

"We quite agree that if an employee is held over after the work is completed that it will be construed as waiting time. Awards 1028, 874. But where rest of five hours or more can be had after leaving and before returning to his home point, outside of assigned hours and waiting and travelling time, the exception applies and the employes are not entitled to pay for such time under the rule. Awards 1429, 1557. The terminal points of the road emergency service covered by the rule are the time of leaving and the time of returning to the home points * * *." (Emphasis supplied.)

We adhere to our former interpretations, and accordingly hold that the time spent at Harlowtown was not waiting time as contended for by Claimants, but was time relieved from duty within the meaning of Rule 22 (b).

AWARD