3. Under the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad Company versus G. W. Burley, et al., No. 1600 (June 11, 1945), this case is not properly before Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, because:

(a). There is no showing- that the individual, in whose behalf the claim purports to have been filed, has authorized, in any legally sufficient form, the submission of this case to the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, by the American Train Dispatchers Association, or the General Chairman of train dispatchers on this carrier, represented by the American Train Dispatchers .Association, or by any other person or association.

(b). Third Division National Railroad Adjustment Board, is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of, or to adjudicate the claim asserted in notice of President of American Train Dispatcher; Association of July 9, 1945, without authorization, in legally sufficient form, by the purported claimant, as set forth in (a) next above.

For all or any of the reasons above recited, respondent carrier contends the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, must reject the submission proposed to be filed by the 1'renident of the American Train Dispatchers Association, or if such submission is not rejected, the case must be dismissed.

If the carrier is wlmrg with respect to the above reasons why this submission should be rejected or the case dismissed, which is not admitted, then, for yet another reason, the case must be dismissed, namely, that the petitioner, American Train Dispatchers Association, is attempting to split the cause of action. That this is true is plainly evidenced by the case covered by this Board's Award No. 2022, Docket TD-2507. The circumstances in that case uvere identical in every particular eich the instant case. The name of claimant, place of employment and date v·ele different. The petitioner was the same, American Train Dispatchers Association. The respondent in that case, as in the instant case, rr-as one of the lines of railroads associated together, and, for convenience of reference, identified as "Southern Railway System."

The claim, as handled with the carrier in the case covered by Award 2622 covered not only the claim as submitted to the Board and disposed of by Award 2622, but also a further claim, identical in every respect to the claim presented in the instant case. See Carrier's submission in Docket TD25f>7, Item I, Page 2, and Carrier's Exhibit 2. See also carrier's answer to employees' oral statement, dated February 16, 1!)44, bcginnin, u-ith Item No. 2 on Page 1, and running through Pages 2 and 2, all of which references are hereby- made a part hereof, the sane as though incorporated frercin.

It is made clear by the references that, at all tines, the petitioner in the instant case had in mind, and mentally in reserve, the ease now proposed to be filed with this Board, and it is clearly an effort, therefore, to split the cause of action, such as was fully dealt ~rith and rejected by your Board in its Award 1215.

If Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Boats, does not reject or dis nu'~ the ex parte sublnis,ion, proposed to be fled, on this petition, then respondent callier requests that an oral hearing be conducted and respondent afforded an opportunity to ar,0.ue the issues herein plcsented

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant rcas employed :r. a Trick Train Di,<patcher with regularly assigned hours I1 :00 1'. 151. to 1:00 A. 111. daily except Wedne.,day, Wednesday being his regukrrh assigned rest day-. On three Thursdays, Feblua;y 17, 1944 May 71, 7944 and September 21, 1944, Claimant ryas re<lcured to Deport for duty alt 5:00 I'. Al., four hours prior to the expiration of the weekly- rest day assigned to his position. 11c thereupon worked four hours on each of three rest days for which lie was conpeilsated at the tine and one-half rate, and the eight hours immediately following con-

stituting his regular assignment for which he was paid at the pro rata rate. It is the contention of the Claimant that he is entitled to compensation at time and one-half for the last four hours worked under Rule 2 (a) of the-Mediation Agreement, dated March 14, 1942, providing for such penalty pay for "time worked in excess of eight (8) hours on any day".

This is a companion claim to Docket TD-3126, Award 3146, and for the reasons given in the opinion in that Award, the claims should be denied.

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

That the Agreement was not violated as alleged in the present claim.

AWARD