contends that Eddis should have been credited with a dead-head trip, Rollinsville-Denver, June 7, and held-for-service time in Denver, June 7-8, and therefore should have been paid at his hourly rate for this extra servrice. The Company has already shown the error of this contention. Inasmuch as Eddis performed no extra service in June, 1948, there could have been no violation of this Rule by the Company in computing his time for that month.

CONCLUSION

In this dispute the Company has shown it correctly computed the time of Conductor Eddis for the month of June, 1948, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 20. Regular Assignments-Full Time. In that month, Conductor Eddis performed full-time service in regular assignment and properly was paid on that basis. Although the Organization claims that on June 7, Eddis' regular operation was interrupted at Rollinsville and that Eddis continued on to Denver deadhead, the record clearly establishes that the service performed by Eddis, Rollinsville-Denver, was service in regular assignment. Further, an understanding with the Organization that trips such as performed by Conductor Eddis between Rollinsville and Denver would be considered as service in regular assignment supports the Company in this dispute. Clearly, the Organization's claim is,without merit and should be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Conductor Eddis was regularly assigned to Line 461, Denver-Salt Lake City, with his home terminal in Denver during June 1948. On a return trip Salt Lake City-Denver on June 7, 1948 the train was stopped at Rollinsville, 42 miles west of Denver, due to a tunnel cave-in. He was instructed to continue in service with the passengers while transported by bus to Denver.

It is claimed that this constituted an interruption of the return trip of his regular assignment entitling him to held-for-service time on return to his home station under Rule 9 of the Agreement between the parties, particularly Q-9 and A-9 thereunder reading as follows:

"Q-9. Shall a regularly assigned conductor be credited and paid held-for-service time on return to his home station, as provided in paragraph (a), when completing only a portion of the return trip of his regular assignment?

A-9. Yes, because there is no layover in the home station for incompleted reegular service."

There is no question but that the Company had a right to instruct him to continue in service with his passengers on the buses to Denver. Hence such travel was in service and not deadheading. However, whether such service was part of his regular assignment is dependent upon the Rules of the Agreement rather than the instructions of his superiors.

In Award No. 4007 we said:

"Our view is his regular assignment was the performance of the job bulletined and bid in by him on train No. 22 as normally operated and that requiring him to perform the same work in a newly created section of the same train resulted in using him in service outside his assignment."

Under that authority his service in accompanying passengers on busses was not part of his regular assignment and hence he completed only a portion of the return trip on his regular assignment and is entitled to credit for held-in-service time in Denver under the Rules.

The Company relies upon a portion of a question and answer statement, which it claims was compiled in collaboration with the General Chairman of the Organization, reading as follows:

"Understanding was also reached with General Chairman Wise that when trains are turned en route, as for instance, turning the 'Champion' on the Pennsylvania Railroad either at Washington or Philadelphia, that the conductor returning home to New York would continue on the train in uniform with his passengers whether in coaches or parlor cars and his time arriving at his home station would be shown as a late arrival and he would not be allowed held for service credit and pay until next due out."

The Organization denies collaboration in the compilation of such statement and would restrict the operative effect thereof to specific trains. Determination of that dispute is not necessary to decision here since in our view understandings in derogation of the contract rules should not be extended by implication beyond the specific matter covered. The alleged understanding refers only to trains "turned en route;" which is not the situation here, so it is inapplicable.

For the foregoing reasons the claim should be sustained and the Claimant's pay for June 1948 should be recalculated upon the basis of this opinion.

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 ail 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

The Company violated the Agreement.

AWARD