Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8709
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8497
 2-TRRAofStL-EW-'81
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis violated Rule 11
 of the April 1, 1945 controlling agreement when they did not distribute
 overtime equally from their record kept for electricians thereby
 depriving Electrician G. Walker on October 10, 1978 the provisions
 of the Agreement at St. Louis, Missouri.
 2. That, accordingly,.Carrier be ordered to compensate Electrician G. Walker
 eight hours (8') at time and one-half rate for October 10, 1978.
 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.

The circumstances in this dispute are similar to those in Award No. 8708, and the Board reaches the same conclusion.

 Several points require emphasis here, however. The Organization argues violation of Rule 11, Distribution of Overtime, by the assignment of an employe with 88 hours' overtime accumulation over a ten-month period, in comparison to the Claimant with overtime accumulation of 41 hours. Seven other employes inthe group had accumulations of from 41 to 49 hours. The Carrier argues that the Claimant was treated equally with seven other employes and was so far behind the employe who was assigned because of lack of desire to perform overtime work on the part of the other employes. No evidence was provided by the Carrier to support this argument, and thus it can carry no weight.

 The Carrier also argues that the acceptance over a period of time of the condition under which one employe received far more overtime than others is a "practice" accepted by the Organization and the other employes and therefore binding. As reviewed in Award No. 8708, the language of Rule 11 is clear and precise. Rule 11 states in part that "Record will be kept of overtime ... with the purpose of distributing it equally among those interested in participating".
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 8709
 Docket No. 8+97
 2-TRRAofStL-EW-'81

 Practice to the contrary, even if shown to exist, cannot defeat the unambiguous meaning of the Rule. In addition, the failure to make a claim of alleged rule violation in one instance does not bar the making of a claim in a later instance, particularly where the remedy sought goes only to the current situation.

 For reasons outlined in Award No. 8708, the claim will be sustained except as to payment of time at the punitive rate.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained to the extent of payment of eight hours at the straight time rate.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By

Date 7at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of May, 1981.