Assistant to General Manager" cc: GWC, JJD, WJO.

In the operation of the Railroad, the Carrier is entitled to have all information in connection with irregularities, and it is the duty of employes to give as much time as required outside of their regular tours of duty to accomplish this purpose. Anderson had pertinent knowledge in connection with the circumstances of the conductor's case and it was necessary and encumbent upon him to be present at the investigation. In Carrier's opinion he is not entitled to any compensation therefor, and feels that its position is in harmony with your award No. 3089, Docket No. CH-3064.

Exhibits not reproduced.

OPINION OF BOARD: On Sunday, September 28, 1946, claimant occupied the position of Yard Clerk at Elko, Nevada, assigned hours 12:00 Midnight to 8:00 A. M. On that date he was required to appear as a witness on behalf of the Carrier at an investigation in which claimant was neither involved nor interested. He was required to remain in attendance from 2:00 P. M. to 5:30 P. M. The Organization contends that claimant should be compensated at the time and one-half rate under the Overtime and Call Rules. The Carrier denies the validity of the claim but contends that if a violation of the Agreement is found to exist, claimant should be compensated under Rule 25, current Agreement, providing:

"Employes taken away from their regular assigned duties, at the request of the Railroad, to attend court or to appear as witnesses, for the railroad, will be furnished transportation and will be allowed compensation equal to what would have been earned had such interruption not taken place, and in addition, necessary actual expenses while away from headquarters. In the event employe is held away from home terminal on Sundays and/or holidays he will be allowed a minimum of one day's pay for each day so held. Employes attending court or acting as witnesses at home point or headquarters outside of their assigned hours will be paid at pro rata rate for the time devoted to such attendance. Any fee or mileage accruing will be assigned to the Railroad."

The claim is clearly sustainable by the language in Rule 25 stating: "Employes attending court or acting as witnesses at home point or headquarters outside of their assigned hours will be paid at pro rata rate for

the time devoted to such attendance." The present claim falls squarely within this provision. The claim will therefore be allowed at the pro rata rate provided therein.

The Organization asserts that the claim is payable under the Overtime and Call Rules. With this we cannot agree. Whatever the rule may be when the Overtime and Call Rules stand alone, Rule 25 is the controlling rule under the present agreement. The Overtime and Call Rules are general rules dealing in general with the subjects they purport to cover. Rule 25 is a specific rule dealing with a special subject. It is a general rule of contract construction that special rules prevail over general rules, leaving the latter to operate in the field not covered by the former. We are obliged to say, therefore, that the Overtime and Call Rules do not control the situation here presented.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record 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;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD