on account of requirements of the service, but to attend an investigation in connection with a motor car accident in which they, themselves, were involved.

The request of the employes to absent themselves from headquarters on Sunday was in connection with service requirements of keeping the signals working and being on hand ready for a call to avoid excessive delays in case of signal failure, due either to weather conditions or heavy traffic, and this has always been understood. Their request to absent themselves cannot be associated with the request to attend an investigation which involved the men in question.

The fact that they were absolved from blame has no bearing on the case as it was not determined until the investigation was completed that no discipline would be applied in connection with the accident.

OPINION OF BOARD: This is a joint submission on an agreed statement of facts.

The question for decision turns on the application of the Call Rule, 14 (c), covering employes subject to call, as follows:

"(c) When such employes desire to absent themselves from headquarters on Sundays or holidays, they will notify the Supervisor of Signals in writing three (3) days in advance of such Sunday . or holiday. In case, for any reason the Supervisor of Signals notifies the employe not to absent himself on such Sunday or holiday, the employe will be considered as held on duty and shall be paid for an eight (8) hours day at the overtime rate."

Both Claimants had been involved in a motor car accident. Both had given timely notice of their desire to absent themselves from headquarters on Sunday, December 30, in accordance with the rule. However, in spite of such notices, they were ordered to attend an investigation of the accident on that day. They base their claim on the terms of the above rule.

Carrier's position is that Rule 14(c) covers only employes held subject to call because of the requirements of the service, and in this case Claimants were not called on account of requirements of the service, but to attend an investigation in which they, themselves, were involved.

However, to sustain Carrier's position we would have to read into a clear and unambiguous rule an exception which is not there. It appears to us too plain for misunderstanding that "in case, for any reason the Supervisor of Signals notifies the employe not to absent himself on such Sunday or holiday, the employe will be considered as held on duty . " means just what it says. (Emphasis added.) It is not subject to construction or refinement.

Whatever may be the reason, if the employe is not permitted to absent himself under the rule, he is considered as held on duty. It should also be noted that the last: phrase is not qualified in any way. He is to be considered as held on duty whether or not he performs work or service for the Carrier.

It may not be reasonably contended that an order to attend an investigation, whether the employe was involved in the matter under investigation or not, is anything else but the equivalent of an order not to be absent.

There are a number of Awards of this Division, reviewed in Award 3302, which have held that an employe who is involved in the matter under investigation is not entitled to recover wages as for "work" performed while attending such investigation, under ordinary call, overtime or holiday rules of other agreements. But tose Awards are not applicable here in view of the terms of Rule 14(c).

Although the rule under consideration may be unique in comparison to similar rules of other agreements it must be enforced as written.

Accordingly the claim must be sustained.

That Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD