these particular claims, we have offered to the employes settlement on basis of the payment of one-half time for any hours beyond eight per day that telegraphing is performed by monthly rated agents, and we were further agreeable to use a devisor of 243 hours per month to determine the hourly rate for the payment of this one-half time beyond eight hours for such telegraphing. This is on the basis that the monthly rate, as per Article i(a) already covers the additional time at pro-rata basis, i. e., it is time comprehended by the monthly rate. The employes refused this offer.

It is true that neither of these employes are at present working as great a number of hours as contemplated by the monthly rate, but we have, nevertheless, not made any adjustments dowqward in those rates.

On basis of the above evidence, it is our position the claim is without merit and should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: The effective date of the Agreement is January 1, 1928. Under this Agreement the agents at Morris, Illinois and El Reno, Oklahoma, are designated by an asterisk (*). The agents at these places originally did not perform any telegrapher's work and were paid a monthly salary for all work they performed. Later the agents were required to do telegraphers' work and at the time mentioned in the claim they did work nine hours a day.

Claimants contend that when they did telegraphers' work their positions were changed from a supervisory agent to agent-telegrapher and they should be compensated at time and one-half for all work over eight hours. To sustain their claim, they rely upon the following rules: Scope, Article 1(a), Article 3(a), 3(), Article 4 (a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(f), 4(g), and 4(j).

The Scope Rule reads:

"The following rules and rates of pay will govern the employment of telegraphers, telephone operators (except switchboard operators), printer operators, agents, agent-telegraphers agent-telephoners, towermen, levermen tower and train directors, block operators and staff men employed upon the lines of these railways as shown in this schedule and are herein referred to as telegraphers."

Article 1(a) reads:

"HOURLY BASIS OF PAY. All employes herein specified shall be paid on the hourly basis, except positions designated by an asterisk (*) will be paid monthly rate as full compensation for all services rendered."

The other rules relied upon by the Claimants deal with overtime, starting time, etc.

The effect of the Claimants' contention is that because they are required to perform telegraphers' work they are removed from the exceptions contained in Article 1 (a). To this we do not agree. Article 1 (a) brovides that positions designated by an asterisk (*) will be paid monthly rate "as full compensation for all services rendered." It does not say the occupants of these positions will perform only certain work, or work only certain hours.

The mere fact that in the list of stations that all asterisked positions were listed as agents in no wise affects this plain language of Article 1 (a). These Claimants are still paid a monthly salary and are not entitled to overtime pay.

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 the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD