An analysis of Rules 3 (e) and 4 (a) show they have application only to the question of relieving chief train dispatchers one day in seven and filling of the chief train dispatchers position when the regular occupant is on his annual vacation or absent from work for other causes. Neither of these rules are or can be considered as working rules for chief train dispatchers. The beneficiary under these rules are the relief and trick train dispatcher and not the chief train dispatcher.

With respect to Rule 4 (b) we have no chief train dispatcher on this property who is regularly assigned to a shift performing trick dispatcher's work. It is obvious, therefoire, that neither of these rules place chief train dispatchers within the scope of the current agreement with the train dispatchers. As set forth in Carrier's Statement of Facts, Mr. Gaddis on dates involved in claim was working as, under the conditions of, and compensated as chief train dispatcher.

Chief train dispatchers on this property are paid a monthly rate of pay to cover all services rendered. They are not represented by any labor organization, neither are they covered by or included in the scope of any working agreement.

Mr. Gaddis knew when he took the position of chief train dispatcher, the rate of which was $13.23 per day as against the rate of $11.60 per day for trick train dispatcher, that it would be necessary for him to accept the conditions of the job, one of which was that he would not be compensated for any overtime worked.

That Mr. Gaddis considered himself as the chief train dispatcher while working in excess of 8 hours per day on the dates involved is proven by the fact that his claim for overtime was made at one and one-half times the chief train dispatcher's rate. To substantiate this statement there is submitted copy of Mr. Gaddis' time report to the General Auditor for the period ending December 31, 1943, from which it will be observed that Mr. Gaddis made claim for the chief dispatcher's rate for all time worked December 23rd to 31st inclusive, 1943.

The Carrier holds it has th·e right, by reason of the fact the chief train dispatchers rate of pay covers all services rendered to hold a chief train dispatcher, or any one holding that position temporarily who is being paid and claims the rate of the job, on duty to supervise the trick train dispatchers, and contends there arc no rules of the current agreement with the American rain Dispatchers Association under which a chief train dispatcher, either regularly or temporarily assigned, can consistently present claims.

In conclusion, the Carrier contends the claims should be denied for the following reasons:

OPINION OF BOARD: There is no dispute as to the facts in this matter. The Claimant was a Train Dispatcher who was assigned to fill the position of the Chief Dispatcher during the illness of the occupant, C. J. Graff, in the Carrier's Salt Lake City, Utah, office.

While performing the duties of the Chief Train Dispatcher this relief man did not thereby cease to be controlled by the terms of the contract. He was, in effect, fulfilling its terms.

On December 23, 24 25, 26, 27, 23, 29, 30 and 31, 1943, he not only worked in place of the Chief Dispatcher, but also worked all or part of the regularly assigned time of the First Assistant Chief Dispatcher. Under the overtime Rule, 2 (b), he was entitled to pay for each hour at the rate of time and one-half for each hour worked in the position of the Assistant Chief Dispatcher, based on the rate of such position.

On December 26. he worked on his rest day and while the position worked was an excepted one, his assignment was under the terms of the contract and for that day he must be paid at the penalty rate. Rule 3 (a). The rate for overtime pay should be that of the position worked and not that of the position which was worked immediately prior thereto.

We feel that this case is governed by three recent awards of this Board. to-wit: Awards Nos. 2905, 2943 and 2944.

The reasoning used in each of the above awards is sound and convincing, and by them we feel bound.

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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes 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