Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11558
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11400
 88-2-87-2-42
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Birmingham Southern Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Birmingham-Southern Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, violated the Agreement, particularly Article 4 and Article 1(e)(2), when they created a relief job on which the hours were not consistent with the position it was relieving and caused Cayman R. D. Gentry to work three (3) hours outside what should be regularly bulletined hours each Saturday and Sunday.

 2. And accordingly, the Carrier should be ordered to compensate Car-man Gentry, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, for an additional onehalf (1/2) hours' pay at straight time or the difference between straight time and overtime for each hour he works between 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. each Saturday and Sunday commencing on January 25, 1986 and continuing until the position is reestablished in accordance with the Agreement.

 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.

The operative facts of this case are reasonably clear. At Carrier's Birmingham, Alabama, facility there was a three (3) shift operation from Monday through Friday as follows:


Form 1 Award No. 11558
 Page 2 Docket No. 11400
 88-2-87-2-42

 This lapping of shifts was permissible on this property because of the language found in Article 5(a)(1) of the Rules Agreement which reads as follows:

On week ends on this property, i.e., on Saturdays and Sundays, Carrier employed a two (2) shift operation, namely:


By bulletin notice dated January 22, 1986, Carrier changed the time of the second shift assignment and advertised it to work from 8PM to 4AM. Claimant bid for and was awarded this new second shift assignment effective January 24, 1986. The penalty Claim which is outlined in the Statement of Claim above followed. As a matter of information, the 8PM to 4AM assignment was subsequently abolished on August 8, 1986.

 Both parties to this dispute rely on the same Agreement provisions in support of their respective positions. They are:










Form 1 Award No. 11558
 Page 3 Docket No. 11400
 88-2-87-2-42

 The Organization contends that because there are three (3) shifts operated from Monday through Friday, the two (2) shifts which are operated on Saturday and Sunday must have starting times which correspond to the starting times of the three (3) shift positions and that because that did not occur in this case, Article 4 was violated. The Organization rationalizes that the 8PM to 4AM shift on Saturday and Sunday was really a third shift assignment that should have had a starting time of 11PM. The Organization cites Second Division Awards 4183 and 10952 in support of its position in this case.

 Carrier argues that the two shifts which operated on Saturday and Sunday were bulletined in compliance with the times allowed by Article 3 of the Rules Agreement. Carrier further points out that the 8PM to 4AM assignment was a realignment of the previous 4PM to Midnight shift and that this change of starting time was necessitated because of interchange deliveries being effected after midnight and Carrier's desire to reduce the overtime costs being experienced by the 4PM to Midnight shift.

 We have examined the on-property record of this case; we have heard and considered the presentations of the parties, and we have studied the precedent cited by the participants. It is our conclusion, based upon the Rules Agreement on this property, that the Carrier's position must prevail.

 Articles 3 and 4 of the Rules Agreement are clear and separate. They apply to distinct situations each of which exists in this case. Unlike the situation in Award 4183 where there were two separate starting times assigned to two separate groups of employees at different locations within the same yard on the same shift, or that, unlike the situation in Award 10952 where one Carman was assigned to report 1/2 hour earlier than the other Carmen assigned on the same shift at the facility, here we have a clear situation in which two (2) shifts were worked on Saturday and Sunday. Article 3 of the Rules Agreement contains clear language relative to the starting times for such two shifts, namely, the first shift is to start as governed by Article 2 (not earlier than 7 o'clock nor later than 8 o'clock), and the second shift is to start at one of three (3) possible times, namely, 1) immediately following the first shift, or 2) at BPM, or 3) at IOPM.

 The assignment of an 8PM starting time in this instance was in compliance with the Agreement language. The Claim as presented must be, and is, denied.


Form 1 Award No. 11558
 Page 4 Docket No. 11400
 88-2-87-2-42
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD low
 By Order of Second Division
 Attest:
 Nancy J ver - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1988.