Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD Ab3USN BOARD Award No. 12400;
 SECOND DI VftZ,On,~.DQcket No. .12131.5
 X32-2-90-2-280 The Second Division consisted of the regular'°mntbers and in
 addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award, was rP~ndered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the service rights of Carman J. Roark (hereinafter ."claimant") and the provisions of Rule -7 of the controlling Shop Crafts Agreement were violated when on August 10, 1989 Carman Roark was required to attend a mandatory Wheel class required by the carrier, two hours after his regular shift. The claimant was only paid straight time in violation of the aforementioned Rules.

 2. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to be compensated for 'two (2) hours pay at the applicable Carmen's half time rate for his attendance'on August 10, 1989.'

 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 Carrier owns and operates the Fulton Yard, a- facility at Richmond, Virginia, where cars are repaired arid classified.

 On August 10,.1989 the Carrier required the Claimant a Carman, to remain at the Fulton Yard for two hours after the end of his regular'shift to attend a mandatory training class on "Identifying and Gauging Wheel Defects-." After attending the class, the Carrier compensated the Claimant for two hours at the straight time rate. With the filing of the instant claim, the Organization seeks payment for the difference between the straight time and the overtime rate.
 Formr `f
 Page . 2--

 Award No. 12400
 Docket No. 12135
 92-2-90-2-280
claims-,fined` by the Carmen at th-e'` Carrierr~-'s facility at Richmond, Virginia.
 The ci` are 'being held in abeyance subject r.tb- the resolution of the instant

 claim:

 DiiiI4 the handling anj the. property, the .only Rule which was claimed to be vibl-ated try the Orgdt~f-z4tldn Ewa's Rule 7.(aj., Indeed, the instant claim submits d try the Organizat'1or r~6fezrs 4ole=1y. to-the violation of the provisions of Rule` 7:'' Accordingly, the .iriatant) dispute--.involves a controversy over the interpretation and application of Rule 7(a) which provides as follows:

 "for Continuous servtde:lafter regular ,working hours, employer will be paid time and bne-half on the actual v minute basis: ° For forty .minutes ots,:less continuous -"service "after"-bu1leC1.tm-tours; one :hour,~straight time

 will be =allo4e'd.

 The central inquiry to be addressed is whether the Claimant performed "continuous service after regular working hours" within the intent and meaning of Rule 7(a). The word-"service'-'~candot be severed from the "continuous," the word which precedes it.~ Thas;'the'parties contemplated unbroken "service" after regular working hbuirs. w '° ~= v. , . ~ x r,:< <- ,

 In this Board's judgment,`alearly, the phrase "continuous service after regular working hours" contemplates "work of the type" that is "continuous" and to which the C.lalmant is regularly assigned. See, e.g., Third Division Award 134. In other words, the word'".service" in Rule 7(a) is synonymous with "work." 'Attendance at a training class is not work or service of the type to which -the' Claimant::'i's: regularly assigned.

 In a previous.de.eis.ian involving tie-asame parties, this Board denied the Organization;' s claim that ^the :over-time xateq 'be paid to a claimant who was among 800 employees that were required to take an annual audiometric hearing test conducted by the Carrier either during the hour before or after their regular shf-t'. `Second-wDivision Award 1234. As in the instant dispute the CairYier 'asserted =-thdt ft4 -'pra3ftent=vf the =s-traight!~ime rate for one hour was gratuitous and not r6qui-red-'by .'the- sclieduled Rule. and Agreements. The instant dispute (as well-as the dispute in _.-Secaud.Division Award 12234) does not involve `tire issue of 'whether '"the -Ga-rrier Ws xrequired under the Agreement to vompensate the Claimant -tfoi atGerid;ance ~_a~t r-av-training class (or, as in Second" Divis'ioxi Award '12234a taiMng .,an _aud-f~ometric hearing test). c 0S A ~-
 Among the Rules that the Carrier claimed were violated in Second Division "Award 122.34 were L°Rule f 7 (a)=; and ~ 7 Ed), :Which refers to the payment of the overtime,-rate "forlservices,performeid 0-ontinuously in advance of the regular'vzioflting period:°''.x Thu$=~Rulesr-z7(a) sand ; (d) provide for the overtime rate `to be paid` for continhc5ug-=servlae- after and.,before the regular working period: As the- Board declared:-in-Second Division Award 12234 with emphasis g iven '*to' Rude 7 --"We read' Ru1ev6 aild 7:. to~_: apply only when the employee is actually performing work or service.t':;This Board is of the opinion that attendance at a training class is similar to the taking of a hearing test in the sense that both activities do not constitute service or work which are normally performed during the Claimant's regular working hours.
 Form 1
 Page 3

 Award No. 12400...
 Docket No. 12135
 92-2-90-2-280
at the training class on August 10<,-1989 the :Claimant would have been disci-;
 plined had he failed to attend tht .class.-_ Thus-., accor&iing to the ,Orga4za:Loii
 the Carrier is required to pay the Claimant the overtime rate. On~the basis
 of the record, the issue before the Board does not encompass the question of
 whether or not the Carrier has the right under .the, Agreement to dArect to the
 Claimant to attend a training class. . The issue<:befar the ,Board; concerns the
 application of Rule 7(a) which requires.;the_payment,of overtime ;under, the
 specified conditions contained therein,r:See, e.g.;, Second Division `Award
 12234. a,.. ..
training class "would not place-the Carrier or employee in a position of not
 being able to perform his/her job properly.";-:The standard.: utilized by the
 Organization if enforced,-would_seriously impede-.progress in just.about every
 facet of the industrial work place. The force that.drAves industry is simply
 "to do it better." In any event, in Award 28 of PLB No. 3445, the Board
 stated the following: i _~ ~,.

 "Therefore, it is not merely for.Carrier'.s benefit that the classes are.held, for without. the classes employees would be uninstructed in the operating rules in violation of Federal law. We agree with those awards cited by-Carrier:holding that the attendance of rules classes seryes,a mutually beneficial purpose. Having determined that both parties benefit from the classes. in ques-tion,, we further find that, absent specific contractual man dates, compensation is nat:required-,for, attendance of such classes. * * * As stated earlier, since these classes are beneficially instructive to Claimants, we do not find them to constitute 'work'. as contemplated by the Agreement."

 The training class held on August-iO, I9$:9~,cover_ed .the subject .of = Y "Identifying and Gauging Wheel.Defects,'`, - Training".which enables the employeea to improve the manner in which they perform their-duties is beneficial to. them. The detection of wheel defects is :a critical ,aspect of a carman's ..

 skills. Attendance at such classes. serves _a .."mutually =beneficial purpose.-`Inasmuch as the training class:was tene.fidUlly instructive to.the Claimant,..
 the Board finds that attendance at-therclass,does got constitute "service;'-.,
 within the intent and meaning of Rule 7(a).

 Finally, the Organizarion::.refers tot ,previous dispute onjhe;,Prop- . erty which occurred in October', '1989 when.. the Carrier=attempte4;to.make,.. voluntary classes "mandatory" without,:proper.compensation. It is.suf~.icient,

 to state that Rule 7(a) cannot.` be construed- te.: imply: that mandatory classes',

 .

 constitutes "service" but voluntary:attendance,at qpch,a class is not. "ser vice." The nature and character is tics. of the training: class are the~same,

 whether attendance is voluntary or mandatdry. .,. _: .a
 Form 1 Award No. 12400
 Page 4 Docket No. 12135 _

The Board has carefully examined the record and concludes that the Claimant's attendance at the training class held on August 10, 1989 was not "continuous'service after regular working hours" within the intent and meaning of Rule 7(a).~- Accordingly, the claim for the. difference between the straight time and the overtime rate is denied.

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


    '~ .. - NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


                      r


Attest:
        Nancy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of August 1992 .

 . . _ ,fir