.orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD Award No. 6376
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6223
 2-B&O-CM-'72
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. app Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties _to hisgutilL. ( (Cannen)




services rendered on August 4, 1970, to the claimant less compensa
 tion received for that date.
 i
 "indings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes'invnlved 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.

Claimant was assigned five consecutive days of work followed by two consecutive rest days. At the end of his fifth day's assigned work shift, 11 P.M. Sunday through 7 A.M. Monday, he was picked from the overtime call board to continue to work on Monday until 3 P.M. On Tuesday, claimant was again nicked from the overtime call board to work from 7 A.M. through 3 P.M. He contends that the first overtime assignment was on his first rest day payable at time and one half his regular rate, the second overtime assignment was on his second rest day payable at double time under Article V of Agreement of April 2112 1970.

 Carrier contends that the work day, also known as a "time card clay", is the twenty four hour period from the time claimant started his shift at 11 P.1!.
 E ~unday until. his first rest day started at 11 F.M. on rlonday. It is argued that he first overtime was paid for as regular work day overtime under Rule <-, (a)

I

i

Form. I Award No.
6376

 Page 2 Docket No. 62^---C

of the Agreement and that the second overtime on Tuesday was paid for as work on the first rest day, under Article V of the April 24, 1970 Agreement.

 This Board has just denied a claim on the same facts in Award No. 6375. The xeasoping is get firth at lex0h in that Award and does not need wo be repeated here.
The Organization has stressed the use of the word-. "assignment" by the carrier in .rejecting the claim on the property and contends that the carrier may not now argue the "tithe card day" theory because of Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Upon reading Employes' Exhibits A-1. through A-6, it does not appear that the correspondence would exclude the carrier's argument which appears irk the carrier's submission in the Record p.1-7.

 The twenty four hour work day or "time card day" rule has been so well established that is is not necessary to make any other finding on the facts of this case.

        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second. Division


                        Attest:

              "'~ ' ·'~~


        Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September,, 1972.