Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7+88
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7367
 2-MP-EW-'78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:










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, 1931+.

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

The Claimant is employed as a Telephone Maintainer fox the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. On October 7, 10 and 13, 1975, the Claimant was instructed by the data. supervisor to go to Natchez, Mississippi to perform tests on data equipment and to locate the problems causing the Univac printers to be inoperative. The equipment involved is knowm as yard and Terminal Subsystem (PATS) and is used for transmitting data to a central computer in the Carrier's headquarters. The conumunications system includes Carrier's own equipment as well as leased equipment such as Univac printers and an Incoterm mini-computer. For the work performed on this equipment, the Claimant filed a claim for twenty and five-tenths hours (20.5') wh~.ch included six hours overtime for Tuesday, October 7, five and one-half hours overtime for Friday October 10, and two hours overtime for Monday October 13, 1975. However, the Communications Supervisor removed the claimed twenty
 Form 1 _ Award No-7488
 Page 2 Docket No. 7367
 2-MP-EW-'78

 and five tenths hours from the Claimant's tune call. In a letter to the Claimant, the Comrmznications Supervisor stated his reasons fox removing the claimed hours as follows: "It is in line with the Telephone Maintainer's duties to determine the trouble on Data and report it to the proper persons to clean." As a result of Carrier's action, the Organization has processed this claim on the basis that the Carrier violated the Agreement effective June 1, 1960, specifically Rule 1 - Section 1(a), Rule 2(a), Rule 3(a), Rule 4(a) and (d).

 The Organization contends that all of the Rules of the agreement must be given consideration, and that the aforementioned rules show that the Claimant is entitled to overtime pay. It is also the Organization's position that the monthly rate afforded Claimant covers all services rendered. on an eight-hour assigned worT-, day, five day work week, stand-by day and all holidays, but no allowance for overtime.

 The Carrier takes the opposing position that Telephone Maintainers are paid a monthly rate of pay based on 212-1/3 hours per month (Rule 107(c)) which is 38-1/3 hours per month more than hourly rated employer. It is the Carrier's contention that the additional hours comprehended in the monthly rate compensates Telephone Maintainers fox those occasions when they are required to work in excess of eight hours per day, Monday through Friday, and certain work which -may be required on Saturday. In the instant dispute the days involved are Tuesday, Friday and Monday.

 Since Telephone T~11aintainers are required to work irregular hours to insure the proper operation of communications systems, a special rule is in effect concerning monthly rates of pay for said employer. This special rule, Rule 107(c) reads in pertinent part as follows:

Rule 107(c) is a special rule dealing specifically with the monthly rate of pay for Telephone Maintainers. This Rule clearly states that the monthly rate will cover "all services rendered". There are only two exceptions stated in the rule. The first exception refers to the classification applicable to service on the employe's rest day, and the second exception refers to the type of work that will be required on the sixth day of the work week. Neither exception is applicable to the instant dispute. Rule 107(c) clearly states that Telephone Maintainers axe paid a monthly rate for all services rendered. It makes no mention of the nuud)ex of hours per day that an employe wall be required. to work; nor does the rule state which six days of the week an employe will be required to work.
 Foam 1 Page 3

 Award No-7488
 Docket No. 7367
 2-MP-Ml-'78

 This Board has held numerous times that where in an agreement there axe general and special rules, the special rule will take precedence over the general rule. See Third Division Awards No. 21621 (Randles), and No. 14242 (Perelson). Dale 107(c), we hold, is a special rule and clearly applicable to the dispute at hand.

 The Organization's claim is based on the contention that the Carrier violated certain sections of the applicable Agreement. They are Rules 1 - Section 1(a), 2(a), 3(a); J+(a) and (d), all of which are general in nature and apply to all employes unless there is a specific rule which applies to a certain classification of work, such as Rule 107(c).

 The Organization contends that the monthly rate referred to in Rule 107(c) is based on an eight hour work day, five day work week, stand-by day and all holidays. It is axiomatic that it is not the purpose of this Board to read into the agreement that which is not expressed -therein. The Rule makes no mention of an eight-hour work day as asserted by the Organization. Therefore, this Board will not read such a requirement into Rule 107(c).

 It is the opinion of the Board that the Carrier did not violate Rules 1 - Section 1(a). 2(a), 3(a), T+(a) and (d). Moreover, the Carrier's actions were supported by Rule 107(c) which is a specific rule and which shall prevail in the instant claim. The claim shall be denied.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY ~ ~..~'~aeu~-~



Dated aChicago, Illinois, this 4th day of April, 1978

NATIOTT~U RAILROAD ADJUST14ENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division