OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that on May 28, 1948, the Carrier directed a crew of employes to deadhead from McDoel to Bedford, Indiana, to bring Engine 229 back to McDoel at 10:30 P. M. of said day. Shortly after the crew reached Bedford, the dispatcher instructed a member of the crew to place a flag on Train 70 to protect the movement of Engine 229, gave instructions concerning the meeting point of Trains 70 and 73, and instructed them not to delay Train 73. It is also claimed that the names of the crew members and their time on duty was given to the dispatcher. This enabled the crew to leave with Engine 229 at 7:40 P. M. instead of" 10 :30 P. M. as previously directed. The Organization contends that this was a violation of the Memorandum of Agreement effective July 15, 1944, particularly paragraph 1 thereof which states:

"IT IS AGREED THAT, effective July 15, 1944, train and engine service employes will not, except in case of emergency, be required or permitted to copy, or train dispatchers or operators be required or permitted to telephone direct to train and engine service employes, train orders (Forms 19 and 31) Clearances (Form A), or verbal instructions in lieu thereof, or take messages of record over the telephone."

The Carrier denies that the dispatcher ever gave any such directions to a member of the crew at Bedford. The evidence shows the General Chairman heard the instructions given over the telephone. While the Carrier asserts that the dispatcher gave no instructions by telephone to a crew member at Bedford, it does not unequivocally deny that such instructions were not given someone authorized to do so. The violation would be as great if the instructions were relayed through a telegraph operator at MCDOel to a member of the crew at Bedford. We think the direct evidence produced and a consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the case establish that such instructions were given by telephone in violation of the quoted paragraph of the Memorandum of Agreement.

The Carrier contends that the claim is required to be personally made by the Claimant under Rule 4H and that a claim made by the Organization on Claimant's behalf is an ineffectual attempt to enforce the Agreement. Rule 4H reads:

"All grievances which may exist shall be taken up with the proper officials of the company in writing within thirty (30) days by the aggrieved."

Assuming, but not deciding, that Rule 4H has application to the claim here made, the interpretation placed upon it by the Carrier cannot be sustained. The words, "by the aggrieved", when given their usual and ordinary construction, do not mean that the aggrieved must act personally to secure compliance with the rule. Such expressions as "by the claimant", "by the accused" or "by the aggrieved" mean that the act shall be performed by the person injured, his agent, attorney, or other personal representative To hold here that the words "y the aggrieved" meant that Claimant and Claimant alone could prosecute the claim would require a strict and strained construction not usually called for and certainly not intended by the parties when the agreement was made.

An affirmative award is required.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole recotd and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That both parties to this dispute waived oral hearing thereon;

That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

AWARD