ment. Only two other positions pay as much as $12.50 a day ($12.52). Adding 69 cents a day to the rate would establish a new rate not supported by rules of the agreement nor justified for any reason.

Under these circumstances, Carrier respectfully requests that claim be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Salary of the position of chief clerk, Record Room, Office of Superintendent of Transportation, was formerly paid on a montly basis. Thereafter on application of the incumbent, this was converted to a daily rate under Rule 62 which provides that "The conversion to a daily basis . . . shall not operate to establish a rate of pay either more or less favorable than is now in effect"

In Award No. 3155 the question of proper daily rate for this position was determined. On the occasion of that award, the employes contended that the daily rate should be determined by division of the annual wage by 306, the number of regular work days in a year. The Carrier, on the other hand, contended that, since the position required Sunday and holiday work and the monthly salary had included that work, the proper method of conversion to daily rate was by division of the annual rate by 365. However, the Board there determined that the position had been compensated on the basis of 306 eight-hour days plus three hours' work on all Sundays and holidays in each year; that the three hours worked on those days were equivalent to 22 eighthour days; and that the occupant, consequently, worked 328 eight-hour days in each calendar year. Accordingly, it determined the daily rate by division of the amount of annual income by 328. Thereby, the Board contended that the gross amount formerly earned "will be earned annually by the incumbent of the position if the Sunday and holiday work is required to be performed as in the past."

From the record of the instant claim, it appears that upon the conversion to daily rate, which had been computed on the basis of three hours' work at regular wage on Sundays and holidays, the Carrier under Rule 56 was required to pay the occupant of this position at penalty rate for all such work. Consequently the conversion established a rate more favorable to the Employe and less favorable to the Carrier. Then within a few days after the award, a new schedule agreement became effective whereundeT an eight-hour minimum was provided for employes called to work on Sundays at penalty rate. Thereby the conversion rate became still more favorable to the employs and still less favorable to the Carrier. Then some time later, the Carrier discontinued the Sunday work on that position altogether and the Employe then found the conversion to daily rate less favorable.

The occupant of the position here contends that the action of the Carrier in discontinuing Sunday work constituted a change in working conditions and violated the previous award, No. 3155. Therefore, lie asks the Board to reconsider the daily rate established for this position nearly three years ago and grant the rate of pay then sought and denied. So far as we are advised, there was no provision before Award No. 3155, establishing for this position special working conditions or minimum or maximum hours of work on Sundays or at any other time. There is nothing in the record to indicate that three hours' Sunday and holiday work was considered an appurtenance to the position or anything more than the employed time basis of payment. That award established no working conditions and no maximum or minimum hours of work and made no condition or requirement for continuance of hours of employment as then existing. It merely rated the change in measure of payment, from payment by time elapsed to payment by time worked; from payment by the calendar to payment by the clock. The occupant of the position sought the change and accepted it, for better or for worse. He accepted his additional pay when he worked more hours. He cannot reject his smaller pay when he works less.

If, as shown by the record, Carrier has discontinued Sunday and holiday employment for this position, such action may be violative of some other

right of the occupant not brought to our attention, but not of Award No. 3155. And any claim, if any exists, must be based on the rule violated. It may be that Carrier has violated some rule not brought to our attention in requiring Saturday afternoon work on this position but if so it is not in violation of Award No. 3155 and does not permit us to modify the award there made. If we had the authority to change the previous award and now increase the rate of pay, then in the event Carrier found it necessary to restore Sunday work, we should be under equal obligation to decrease the rate of pay; the rate of pay would never be stable and our award never final.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all 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

Claims 1 and 2 denied.

AWARD