ployes are trying to twist that language to mean suspension of work on his regular assignment. To meet their views would require some additions to the agreed rule, which is not within their province or that of this Division. In their Statement of Claim, the Employes admit that he was not "required to suspend work during regular hours," because they specifically say that he was only required "to suspend work on his regular assignment."

Another factor the Employes have overlooked in progressing the claim, is that it relates to suspension of work for one purpose only; i. e., the absorption of overtime, and even if there had been a violation of the rule, which we deny, the suspension of the man from the duties of his regular assignment could not have been for the purpose of absorbing overtime as the overtime that ensued as a result of the regular employes' failure to report for duty was paid for under Award 4467. That award compelled us to pay the men who should have been called from home on their days of rest instead of using Mr. Baker. Having paid for the overtime, there is nothing left to absorb.

As indicated in the carrier's Statement of Facts, the claims of Messrs. Gililland, Downs Barber, Shea and Richards have already been paid under the provisions of Award 4467 of this Division as a result of a standby agreement with the organization.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants Gililland, Downs, Barber, Shea, and Richards were regular occupants of positions necessary to continuous operations, and the dates set forth in the Claim were their respective rest days. On said dates no furloughed or extra men were available and the Carrier called Claimant Baker from his regular position and used him to fill the vacancies, instead of calling the other Claimants.

The Carrier offered to compensate Gilliland and his similarly situated associates at their straight time rates, but the Employes contend for pay at time and one-half. That said Claimants had a right to said work in preference to Claimant Baker must be conceded, and had they been called they would have been entitled to their time and one-half rates. This calls for the application of the rule that when an employe is entitled, willing and ready to work and is prevented from doing so by his employer, the employe should receive the emoluments that would have been his, had he worked. This principle is supported by the Awards of Board, as well as the law of the jurisdiction where this controversy arose. See Awards Nos. 3371 and 3375, citing Steinberg v. Gebhardt, 41 Mo. 519.

The Employes also ask that the Claimant Baker be compensated, additionally, at his pro rata rate for each of the days that he was taken from his regular position and required to fill the positions to which the other claimants were entitled. The Carrier says, however, that Baker, on the days covered by the Claim, performed the same character of wor, during the same hours, that he would otherwise have performed on his own position, and that to adopt the Employes' theory would result in the imposition of a double penalty.

Baker occupied his regular position through the exercise of his seniority and it had been duly assigned to him by bulletin. His assigned hours were 6:00 A. M. to 2:30 P. M., Friday through Wednesday, with Thursday as his day of rest. This being a position necessary to continuous operation, he was required to work on Sundays at his straight time rate. All of the positions filled by Baker on the days in question had assigned hours that were different than those of his regular position.

Under these circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that Baker was required to suspend work on his regular assignment to absorb overitme

Technically, a double penalty only results when an employe is twice compensated for the same work, and that can hardly be said to be the situation here. In any event, penalties are regarded as coercive in character, rather than compensatory. hey are often imposed, as a matter of sound discretion, to bring about the observance of agreements. Such exactions often appear harsh and the benefits thereof frequently accrue to the enrichment of persons whose rights to them would otherwise be difficult to justify. They are sometimes justified, however, to maintain the vitality of agreements. See Award No. 4539. We deem the penalty warranted in the instant case.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute notice of hearing thereon, and 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

That the Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD