usual starting time and place (which they were not required to do) the most they could have received pay for was a minimum of three pro rata hours, and even then they could have been required to perform work during the three hours for which they were to be paid. Eight hours pay, such as is here claimed though no work was performed, is not guaranteed even when required to report and actually perform service.

Moreover, Rule 40 specifically provides that no compensation will be allowed for work not performed. No work was performed on October 18 by any of the claimants; therefore, under the provisions of Rule 40, the claim is not valid.

This claim simply boils down to a case where the Section Foreman desired to be off one day for some unexplained reason. He gave the Supervisor short notice, and that he might be accommodated, the supervisor permitted him to be absent from his assignment. The Foreman who was accommodated and the laborers who claim pay are all represented for purposes of the Railway Labor Act by the same organization. The same General Chairman represents both groups of employes, and simply because respondent accommodated the Foreman by permitting him to be off on short notice (there was no obligation to permit him to be off) the Brotherhood is attempting to penalize respondent. There is no justification under the rules or in equity for placing a penalty on respondent for being accommodating.

The claim which the Brotherhood is attempting to assert on behalf of the six claimants is wholly without merit and is unsupported by any rule contained within the four corners of the agreement here in evidence. It should, therefore, be denied, and respondent respectfully requests that the Board so decide.

OPINION OF BOARD: The System Committee of the Brotherhood makes this claim in behalf of the six named members of the section crew at Saragossa, Alabama. It contends that Carrier violated their Agreement on October 18, 1947 by laying off the entire section crew for that day. It asks that these men be paid for that day at the rate of pay then in effect for their respective positions.

J. O. Fredericks was, on October 18, 1947, the regularly assigned section foreman at Saragossa, Alabama. He had, prior thereto, requested permission to have that day off. This request was granted but, at the same time, he was directed to lay off his entire crew on that day. This he did and consequently his crew, the claimants here, did not work on October 18, 1947. They returned to work on Monday, October 20, 1947. They were not paid for the 18th.

Rule 35 of the parties' effective Agreement provides:

This rule means that gangs will not be laid off for short periods for the purpose of reducing expenses, if such reductions can be accomplished by laying off junior men. It is a specific rule limiting carrier's right to lay off gangs, when such is done for the purpose of reducing expenses. But that is not the situation before us. What the Carrier did here was not because of any plan for the purpose of reducing expenses. It came about solely by reason of the situation that developed when the Section Foreman took the day off although, of necessity, it did reduce expenses. We do not find the foregoing rule applicable to the situation before us.

Carrier's right of management, as far as these employes are concerned, is restricted only to the extent it has contracted with the Brotherhood to limit itself. Admittedly there is no guarantee rule in the parties' effective Agreemen covering the situation before us. In the absence of any rule restricting

That Carrier has not violated the Agreement.

AWARD