The situation dealt with in Award No. 815 is identical with that on this .carrier, although we recognize that there is some slight difference in the respecive rules. In the instant dispute the same circumstances prevailed; viz,. Agent-Telegrapher at Williamsfield had reported sick, no qualified extra man was available and it was necessary to protect service at Williamsfield. It was necessary to divert Claimant Brooks to fill the vacancy. It was also necessary to work the regular men at Latimer Tower and at Andover Tower, who otherwise would have been relieved by the claimant, on their respective rest days and pay them at the time and one-half rates.

CONCLUSION

The claim of the employes in this dispute should be denied for the following reasons:

1. The General Committee has had its day in court and we believe the controversy here is res adjudicata by reason of Awards 2511 and 3132 which cover the same principle involved herein and settled the issue.

2. There is no rule in the agreement restricting the carrier's right to divert regularly assigned employes in emergencies and under such circumstances the carrier is obligated to pay only the higher rate.

3. Operator Brooks was used in an emergency and compensated in accordance with the rules of the agreement.

4. Claimant did not lose any time because of this emergency. He performed service on each of the six days during the week.

5. Article 13 of the agreement is controlling.

6. The carrier contends that when this case is reduced to its essential details only one fact stands out, namely that Operator Brooks was diverted and used in an emergency and compensated in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 and practices thereunder.

7. It is the carrier's final contention that the claim in this case is entirely without merit and should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: Mr. Brooks was regularly assigned to relief positions. On March 1, 2, 3, 1944, he was taken from his regular assignment and required to work the agency at Williamsfield. He claims pay as stated in the submission.

The Carrier contends that payment is properly made under Rule 13(a), entitled "Regularly Assigned Employes Doing Relief Work."

There is no question but that the Agent at Williamsfield was sick and a relief man necessary at that point. The Organization contends that there were three extra telegraphers available on the extra lists and hot working. There is no question but that one of these was not qualified for the Williamsfield job and that the two remaining ones would not accept assignment outside of their home town of Ashtabula.

The Organization contends that the rules do not permit any extra employe to decline service for personal reasons; that he must accept work arising anywhere in the seniority district; that any agreement between the Carrier and the employes as to limited service is without rule sanction; and that accordingly the men were available. This argument goes to the right of the employe to remain on the extra list when refusing to accept unlimited service. It does not negative the fact that the extra employes here were not available for service at Williamsfield. This brings the claim squarely within the confines of our Awards 2511 and 3132, denying claims involving these same parties, the same rules, and substantially the same factual situation.

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 employe is not entitled to the pay claimed.

AWARD