Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10113
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9650
 2-CofG-CM-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee David Dolnick when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Central of Georgia Railroad Company

 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 employes 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.

Carrier operates a car repair facility at Columbus, Georgia and employs carmen to perform work within their craft. The Columbus, Georgia facility received a report on August 24, 1980, that L & N car 193600 set out at Carrollton, Georgia needed a different pair of wheels. On August 28, Carman A. L. Wynn.was sent from Columbus to Carrollton to install the wheels on L & N Car 193600. From Carrollton, Wynn went to White Sulphur Springs, Georgia to repair a train-line on San-314159 that was set out on August 25, 1980 and reported to the Columbus Shop in the morning of August 26, 1980. Wynn left Columbus Shop on August 28 at 7:30 A.M. and returned at 8:30 P.M. He earned five and one-half (511) hours overtime. On that date, Wynn had earned and was paid for 168k overtime hours from January 1 to August-28, 1980. For the same period, the Claimant, Swanson earned and was paid for 66% overtime hours.

 On August 29, 1980, Carmen Wynn and Duvall were sent from Columbus, Georgia to Gold Ridge, Alabama to install two pair of wheels in NATX 71200. From.there they were sent to Kellyton, Alabama to book some 84 cars, then North Dadeville, Alabama to book 98 more cars and then to Opelika, Alabama to repair 6 cars at Uniroyal Tire Company. Wynn and Duvall left Columbus, Georgia on August 29th at 7:30 A.M. and returned at 10:30 P.M. Each of them earned seven and one-half (71) hours overtime. The overtime board showed that Wynn had already earned and.
 Form 1 Award No. 10113

 Page 2 Docket No. 9650
 2-CofG-CM-'84

 was paid for 168k overtime hours and Duvall had earned and was paid for 151 3/4 overtime hours. At the same time, Claimant T. Thompson had earned and was paid for 73 3/4 overtime hours and Claimant Kynard had earned and was paid for 71 overtime hours.

 At that time Wynn and Duvall were regularly scheduled for the first shift while the Claimants, Swanson, Thompson and Kynard were all scheduled for the second shift.

 Employes contend that the Carrier violated Rule 10 by permitting such a disparity of overtime hours to accrue to Wynn and Duvall in relation to the overtime hours accrued to each of the Claimants during the same time period. The pertinent language in Rule 10 reads as follows:



We agree with the Carrier that generally, when a road trip becomes necessary, it may not have advance knowledge of the time required to complete the work and that the assigned employes will work beyond their regularly scheduled eight (8) hours. But here Carrier knew on August 24, 1980 that L & N car 193600 was set out at Carrollton, Georgia and that repairs were required. The Carrier certainly should have known that carman Wynn had already accumulated 1684 overtime hours. Even though Wynn earned 52 hours overtime on August 28, 1980 in addition to his 168k accumulated overtime hours they again sent him out on a road trip on August 29, 1980 wherein he earned additional 7% overtime hours. Similarly, the Carrier knew on August 29, 1980 that Duvall had accumulated 151 3/4 hours. Carrier knew on August 28 and 29, 1980 that the disparity of accumulated overtime hours between Wynn, Duvall and each of the three Claimants was of such unconscionable disparity that it should have been alert to the fact that overtime was not distributed as equally as possible consistent with the forty (40) hour week rules.

 Equalization of overtime under Article 10 is not confined to employes within each shift. Where employes on the first shift, as here, accumulate more than twice the overtime hours than those accumulated by employes on the second shift, it becomes the duty and indeed the obligation of the Carrier to make every effort to permit overtime to be earned by the employes on the second shift so that an effort of equalization is apparent. There is no evidence that the Carrier even attempted any reasonable effort to do so.

 Each of the Claimants worked and were paid eight (8) straight time hours on their respective dates of August 28 and 29, 1980. There is no rule or practice which entitles each of them an additional eight (8) hours pay at the overtime rate for the overtime hours worked by those assigned to work on August 28 and 29, 1980. Thus, Claimant Swanson shall be paid for five and one-half (511) hours at the applicable overtime rate of pay for August 28, 1980 and Claimants Thompson and Kynard shall each be paid for seven and one-half (7%) hours at the applicable overtime rate of pay for August 29, 1980.
 Form 1
 Page 3

 Attest:

 Award No. 10113 Docket No. 9650 2-CofG-CM-'84

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of October, 1984