'orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSTMENT HOARD Award No. 6477
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6244
 2-x&w-EW-' 73
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving R. Shapiro when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 16, Railway Employes"
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. O.
 Parties to Dispute: (Electrical Workers)

Dispute: Claim of Raployes:




r'indings : j
 i
 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and i.
 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 Railvay Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934. .

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. i

The Claimants, regularly employed by the Carrier at its Roanoke, Virginia Shops, were, ;; accordance with their standing on the appropriate overtime list, advised on Friday, October 9, 1970, that their services were required on Sunday, October 11, 1970 to "make changes in the wiring on the sixth floor of the General Office Building North", a location some distance from their regular work stations in the Shops. Claimants reported to the Shops at 8:30 A.M. on Sunday, October 11, 1970, as instructed, picked up necessary tools, travelled to the General Office Building, completed the assignment, and returned to the Shops. The entire transaction consumed less than three full hours and they were paid therefor at time and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay.
 Form 1 Award No.
 6477
 Page 2 Docket No. 62
 2-N8W-Ew-' 73
 On October 19, 1970, a time claim was filed in behalf of the Claimants
 involing Rule 8 of the Controlling Agreement and based thereon alleging that the
 Claimants should have been afforded eight hours of work by Carrier on Sunday,
 October 11, 1970, which was one of their assigned rest days.

 Carrier rejected the claim on the grounds that Rule 8 is not applicable under the conditions and circumstances of the facts summarized above. It contends that Rule 8 applies to employes "regularly" assigned to work on their rest days and that this is supported by Rule 12(0) which provides that:

The extensive review by the Carrier of the history and evolution of the various rules claimed to be factors in this dispute was most illuminating. However, the claim is based on the application of Rule 8 which reads:

            "RULE No. 8 - OVERTIM


            Employees assigned to work on their rest days or on holidays, or those called to take the places of such employees, will be allowed to complete the balance of the day unless released

            at their own request . ... "


Carrier avers that Claimants were called out to perform the necessary work and that their being compensated pursuant to the call rules was in full compliance with contractual requirements. There are several facets of the related circumstances on the weekend of October 9 through 11, 1970 which seem to negate this position: The Rules cited by the Carrier specifically relate to methods of computing compensation for working on rest days. Rule 8 sets forth an obligation to provide work or pay in lieu thereof under the circumstances to which it refers. It is well established and recognized that the call rules involve the requiring of services by emplo-yes to deal with happenings which arose without design, without being expected, corning by change, caused by unforseen events. (See Third Division Award 14540.) No where in its submission does Carrier asS.rt that an unforeseen emergency requiring a call-out of Claimants had arisen. The contrary is the fact. The work was the conclusion of an ongoing project which was to urovide standby el_,=cf=.cal power for Carrier's Computer Service Center and which when integrated with the then existing computer electrical system would afford. an uninterruptable sourcc of pots^r for that facility. The final connecting worlr was pre-planned and Clairnonts were "r--signed" to perform it, not called out.

 Carrier, at length, insists that the word "regularly" is to be implied or added in front of the word "assigned" in Rule 8. It cites Rules from Agreements commencing in 1917 and those negotiated over the years until 1049 in whi-ih were found the predecessors to the current Rule 8 at times prior to the establishment of the forty-hour work week in the industry. The
 cited Rules invariably read, "Employees regularly assigned to work Sunday ", j
 It recounts the disagreement between the Organizations representing the employes
 and itself on modifications to be made in certain Rules to bring about conformance
 Form 1 Award No. 5477
 Page 3 Docket No. 6244
 2-N8&J-M1-' 73

 with the lo,4Q National Agreement. Rule 8 was one of those in dispute. The Committee tot-fiich the controversies were submitted rendered Decision 5, which Carrier claims set up the intent of Rule 8, namely that Rule 12(o) and Rule 7 applies to all rest day work except that performed by employes "regularly" assigned to such schedule. No explanation with probative factual data is offered for the omission by the drafters of the Rule of this significant word when the Agreement, allegedly in accord with Decision 5, was codified and put in final form. Nor does Carrier present any example of any employes anywhere in its System who are "re,~ularl?;" employed to wor'_: on their assigned rest days. It is interesting to note that the ~nploye members of the Forty-Hour Week Committee which issued Decision 5 dissented frog: part of the decision (attachment N-2 to Carrier's submission) and th.4s may have a bearing on the evolution of Rule 8's current language_ It should not: be necessarj to cite the extensive number of Awards in which it was enunciated and restated that this Board is not empowered to amend, modify or hdd to the Rules of the Agreement.

 There is a 'grief reference in the correspondence, as the claim was being processed to the fact, alleged by the Local Chairman, that the Carrier, in arranging for the work: to be done at the General Office Building, could have utilized the Claimiants for other work for the remainder of their shift time on October 11, 1970. This was not dealt :with by Carrier in its submission, and leaves a void with reference to it.

 It must be noted that the facts in the instant dispute are clearly distinguishable from those in the Airaxds cited by both sides and the Award herein is not prenisec? thereon.

 We are giving a strict interpretation of the language of this Rule. It does not provide that in making an assignment to employes to work on their rest day, that they be afforded 8 hours work or pay in lieu thereof. It says, "they will be allowed to complete the balance of the day ...". The Claimant's normal worst day ended at 3:30 P.M. and they had a one-half hour unpaid lunch period. They did not ;protest being told to report at 8:30 A.M. Therefore, Carrier was required to afford them three and one-half hours additional work:.

 This Board has, in many of its Awards, refused to grant compensation at punitive rates to employes who were held to have been deprived of a contractual. right to certain work, but who were not in a position to perform any of the work. This concept is not pertinent to the instant .natter. Claimants appeared for work, were ready, willing, and able to continue working to the end of their normal shift; quitting time anal are entitled to premium pay for the hours they should have been
 retained at worac-. i

                                                              i


                                                              I


                                                              I

Form 1
 Pale
Award No. A77

Docket No. 6244

2-rr&r-gr- · 73


It must be held that Claimants were entitled to the benefits of Rule 8 .:her. they were assigned to'.aor%; on Octoberll, 197C and they should have been given an additional three and one-half hours work to do or pay therefore at tire and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay.

 A ;y' A R D

 Claim sustained to the extent set forth in the Findings.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST10,27T BOARD y;;r Order of Ceconrl Division

 rr:E'_Ct.R 1 VC

 Dated at ~:ir;a.0 ;.^., Illinois, this 'Cl;i day )f Ar9.? 1!