"The attention of the Board is invited to the fact that Acampo is normally a non-agency or `blind siding,' located in a fruit producing territory, at which carload shipping facilities exist and from which carload shipments of grapes are made during a season extending over about two months. There was no practical necessity from the Carrier's standpoint for maintaining a full-time 8-hour assignment at Acampo but the Telegraphers' Agreement does not permit an assignment of less than 8 hours. The sole purpose in opening the seasonal office was to care for the convenience and necessity of the carload shippers of grapes. The only period of the day that an Agent-telegrapher was necessary or his services might be utilized was the late afternoon and evening after the loading of cars has been completed, cars to be sealed, shippers' bills of lading were to be signed, waybills prepared, and arrangements made for cars to be picked up and switching to be performed. As a matter of fact all of these details could just as easily have been taken care of by the regularly established agency at Lodi, only 2.9 miles distance and without the necessity of establishing the seasonal agency at Acampo. Acampo was not a train-order office and there was no need for the Agent-telegrapher as a train order operator. The Carrier therefore established the hours of 3:00 P. M. to 12:00 midnight, excluding a meal hour, as an assignment that would best serve the needs of the shippers and the operating requirements of the Carrier and which actually accomplished that purpose.

CONCLUSION: "Inasmuch as we have clearly and conclusively shown that no rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement has been in any manner violated, but to the contrary, the Carrier having strictly adhered to the provisions of the agreement in the assignment of hours to the seasonal position of Agenttelegrapher at Acampo, the Carrier requests that the claim of the Petitioner be denied.

"For the Board to do otherwise than deny the claim, would be in utter disregard of the principle enunciated in its Award 109 of October 15, 1935, wherein it was stated:

OPINION OF BOARD: This is a companion case to TE-1338, TE-1339 and TE-1340 and was argued concurrently therewith.

The position of Agent-telegrapher at Acampo, a one man station, was established on Sept. 1, 1938, with the assigned hours of 8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. On Sept. 13, 1938, the assigned hours were changed to 9:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M., and on September 16th, without conference or agreement between the parties, the assigned hours were changed to 3:00 P. M. to 12:00 Midnight. This station was closed on October 31, 1938.

The arguments presented in this case are the same as those presented in TE-1338, 1339 and 1340, except that the carrier further argues that, in the event a violation of the agreement is found, reparation is barred because "the cause for complaint disappeared with the closing of the station on Oct. 31, 1938, and that the claim was not submitted to this Board until June 23, 1940, almost two years thereafter."

As in Awards 1558, 1559, and 1560, decided herewith, we find that by requiring the agent at Acampo to begin his "one man assignment" at 3:00 P. M. without mutual agreement between the parties, the Carrier has violated the agreement. .

There is no language in the agreement which bars the claim for overtime compensation such as was the basis for decision in Award 863. Awards that deal with "cut-off" rules on other properties are not controlling here. Nor

can we say that Award 1079 is controlling where the claim for reparation was denied because "the conditions of which complaint is made had dis appeared." In this instance the only reason the conditions disappeared was because the station was discontinued.

No limitation being imposed in the agreement upon the time for filing claims, the Petitioner is entitled to the compensation claim for overtime. Such reparation is limited, however, by the facts to the period from Sept. 16th to Oct. 31st, 1938.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD