Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8215
 SECOND DIVISION Docket ?;o. 8025
 2-SP--7W- · $0
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered.

 ( (System Federation No. 114, Railway ~mployes'
 ( Departments A. F. cf L. _ _ C. 1. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen and Oilers)
 ( Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 Dispute: Claim ofnpl.oyes:

 1, That under the provisions of Rule 20 of the Controllin? Agreement,
 Firemen and oiler Clifford j.o,,knara, as i-arro_ ~ `r

until his retiremen-t. The above: ~.~:_r.e~d ei.adoyee hereinaiber rel-'erred to as
 Claimant was d.eried reir:trursement for the difference of pay betWeen Laborer's
 rate of pay and Tractor Operator's rate of ,,.-,ay.

      2. That accordingly, the Carricr be ordered to:


Pay the aforesaid employee the difference between the Laborer's rate of pay and Tractor Operator's rate of pay; since May ist. 1977, until his retirement.

 Findings:.

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or ce.rriers and. the craploye or employes in-rulvcd in this dispute are respectively carrier and e:~plo-e within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acv as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the AdjustrnetT:t ~;·~ard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

      Parties to said dispute waived right of a.7.~esx-anre at hearing thereon.


Claimant, Clifford T~-,orlmar, em-aloyei as a Laborer at Stockton, California allegedly arms denied benefit of a h3. ~rsr rated work dia:xing the :-eriod May 1, 1.977 to date of Claimant's retirevcnt, effective January 1, 1978.

 The Organization contends Claimant was denied re ir;bursement for the difference of p.^,y b-tween Laborer's re,te of nay and Tractor Operator's rate of pay in violation of Rule 20 of the uontrolling :%gre-men' ef'ective Gctcber lo, 1937 and rep:^intec September 1, 1970, including rcvisions. rule 20 reads in full as follows:
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 8215
 Docket No. 8025
 2-5 F-F 3~0- ` 80

 Rule 20
HIGHER and LUdER RATED WORK

 An employee required to perform work for which the rate of pay at the point employed is higher than his regularly assigned rate of pay, will be paid the higher rate of pay, on the following basis:

      1st: Working thirty (30) minutes or less at. a specific higher rate, the higher rate will not be allowed.


      2nd: Working thirty (30) minutes to one (1) hour at a specific higher rate, will. be allowed one (1) hour at that rate.


      3rd: Working over one (1) hoiz and not exceFdirg four (4) hours at a specific higher rate, will be allowed that higher rate on a minute basis.


      4th: Working more than four (4) hours at a specific higher rate, will be allowed the highcr rate for the shift on which the higher rate is worked.


If required to temporarily perform work for which A rate of pay lower than his regular assigned rate of pay is established, his regular assigned rate of pay will not be reduced.

 Note: If worked on more than one higher rate,
 none of which exceeds four (4) hours, the
 higher rates worked will be allowed in
 accordance with items 1st to 3rd above.
 If worked ran more than one higher rate,
 including, a fate higher than one worked
 more than four (4) hours, such highest
 rates wii.l be cczrputed separately for each
 shift of duty.

 Carrier has resisted the instant claim on both substantive and procedural grounds. `the Carrier takes the position the claim is procedurally defective as it was not presented -;.id handled on the property either in accordan re vita Circular 1 or Rule 32 of the Ccntro:L3_iiig Agrec-ment. Specifically, Carrier maintains there had been r.o presentation of the instant claim at the local level. Carrier therefore urges the Board to disrxiss the claim based upon these procedural defects.

 The board rotes that during the conference on the property, tale General Chairman presented to Carne-'°s Labor Relations Officer copies of the cc.~ar~·~.~ dence pertaining to the instant claim which had been exchanged between the
 Form 1 Award No. F215
 Page 3 Docket No. 8025
 2-SP-F&O-'80

 parties at the local level. Such correspondence included letters filom. the Carrier or, Coromar:y stationary with references to t::e General Chairman's 'Letter of July 29, 1977, setting forth the original claim and addressed to the Superintendent. In response to a denial by Carrier's Labor Relations Officer that he neither had ever seen the correspondence or that the local level had copies thereof, the General Chairman offered to let the Labor Relations Officer make copies for his files, an offer that was declined. Clearly, Carrier's position leads to the conclusion the Organization was guilty of having fabricated the correspondence in quE;ition. However, as ',he Board cannot find any evidence in the record establish ing fraud or fabrication, we must reject as Inconclusive the mere inference of such conduct.

 In Third Division Award 22531 involving this very Carrier and the Maintenance of Way Organization, the Board was faced with a somewhat similar situation though with the ;Ahce on the other foot; the Organization assertin; non-compliance because it had allegedly never received a copy of the highest officer's declination. There, as here, the defending party prodaced a cop;1 of the letter al proof of agreement compliance. :'he Board accepted this proof, noting, in pertinent part:

        "Here, the parties have followed tfe practice of using the regular mail. Carrier h,-;I.-3 established that it mailed its letter of denial in a, tf?,jely fashion. Carrier did all it could do under the system jointly chosen by the parties. To hold it responsible for the failure of the postal service would be unreasonable."


While the postal system failure may be just one of the variables or factors involved in this case, the facts remain here, as in Award 22531, that the Organization produced copies of both the Carrier and their correspondence, and under the authority of Award 22531, this is sufficient on this property. The Board believes that good labor relations between the parties is built upon trust and respect for the word of the other side and we ads-onish both sides to s6 view their dealings with each other.

 As to the merits of the instant claim, we rote allegations and counter allegations regarding the amount of time the Claimant was alleged to have performed tractor operating duties during, the period in question which, by the admission of both parties would be sixty (60) days retroactive to the filing of the claim at the local level on July 29, 1977 and then foz^.aard from that date. While the Organization rephrased their statement of claim in the appeal to this Board, we think that the parties had no problems understanding the overall gist of the claim and that the change in the 1 anguaEe of the claim Tas not so suo stantial as to alter the basic intent and scope of the initial. claim, nor to amend the claim or to mislead the other party. Therefore, variance as a defense against such changes is not applicable under the prevailing circumstances in the instant case.
 Form 1 Page
Award loo. 8215
 Docket No. 8025
 2-SP-F&0- 1 80

 Given the numerous assertions and counter assertions made by the parties, it is impossible for the Board to make an evidentiary determination as to what actually transpired on the many dates encompassed in the instant claim. However, the Board believes both parties are knowledgeable as to the proper interpretation of Rule 20 which is plain and unambiguous, that is, "Working more than four (4) hours at a specific higher rate, will be allowed the higher rate for the shift on which the higher rate is worked." The other provisions of Rule 20 applying to alternative work situations are equally clear and unambiguous to their interpretation and application. Therefore, based on the clarity and straightforwardness of the application of Rule 20, the Board relying on the good faith and honesty of the p=arties has decided to remand this claim back to the property for settlement. The Board directs the parties to thoroughly examine the applicable records. If the records reveal that Claimant did not perform hi-:per rated work for more than four (4) hours on the days in question, then this claim is without merit. If, on the other hand, Claimant _did perform higher rated work for more than four (4) hours on said days, then he is entitled to compensation in accordance with Rule 20. The Board shall retain jurisdiction in the event the parties are unable to dispose of the claim in accordance with the guidelines specified above.

 A W A R D
Claim is remanded back to the parties in accordance with the foregoing findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSThE3T BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

      Rosemarie L:asch - Administrative Assistant


Dat d at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of January 1980.