the claim of the Employes for any payment under Item (3) or for any additional payment under Item (4).

The additional claim of the Employes covered by this dispute results solely from the disagreement during the period involved, and is a claim for payment in excess of that which would have been made ad Decision No. 10 been received prior to September 1, 1949, even though the same amount of service had been require

The Carrier respectfully submits that Decision No. 10 neither provides for nor intends the assessing of any penalty by reason of its provisions not being complied with prior to its issuance. It, as well as the other decisions of the Forty-Hour Week Committee, issued as a result of handling of disputes under Article VI-Disputes Machinery-of the March 19, 1949 Agreement:

°* * * shall be effective as of September 1, 1949."

The fact that the Carrier could not formally assign a rest day "effective September 1, 1949," subsequent to February 15, 1950, when Decision No. 10 was issued does not affect the fact that payments were made to the agents involved for service performed on Sundays on the same basis as if Sunday had been assigned as rest day during the entire period and does not validate Employes' claim for payment in excess of that which would have been due the agents involved for service performed on Sundays during this period solely by reason of the matter being in disagreement and no rest day formally assigned.

The Carrier respectfully submits there was good basis for its opinion that these employes were not covered by the March 19, 1949 Agreement, due to its understanding that these were supervisory agents subject only to the requirement contained in letter agreement, September 12, 1940, providing that the positions be filled from the Telegraphers' rosters.

Under the circumstances outlined, it is the Carrier's position that employes involved have been allowed all payment due them for services performed on Sundays, Septembers 1, 1949-February 28, 1950, and respectfully requests that the claim for additional payment be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to September 1, 1949, the holders of the positions referred to in the claim herein were compensated in the form and manner set out in item two (2) of Respondent's Exhibit two (2). On the above date the Chicago Agreement went into effect. The respective parties hereto were unable to arrive at a meeting of the minds with reference to whether the hereinabove mentioned holders came within its terms. The Forty Hour Week Committee in Decision No. 10, rendered on February 15, 1950, held such employes were within the meaning of the Chicago Agreement. The Decision was binding upon the parties and the effective date thereof reverted back to September 1, 1949. It will thus be noted Article 2, Sec. 2 (c) (3) of the Chicago Agreement became Art. 7, Sec. 3 (b) of the August 1, 1950, Agreement of the parties hereto.

The matter we have to do with concerns Article 7 of the last above mentioned agreement, in particular Petitioner under date of April 23, 1950, stated, "It is our position that these employes are entitled to a minimum of eight hours' pay at time and one-half rate for each Sunday subsequent to September 1, 1949, until Sundays was designated as the rest day and a lesser number of hours assigned on that day subject to the agreement. It is our position that the number of hours worked by these agents on Sunday

9rlor to the assignment of Sunday as rest day, unless in excess of eight ours, is not important since they were subject to duty on Sunday the same as on any other day of the week" Respondent upon establishing Sunday as the rest stated under date of March 1, 1950, "Sunday should be designated as rest day for these positions, and this matter watched closely with view of seeing that only such service as is absolutely necessary is required for these employes on their rest day.

From the above and foregoing we understand that had the hereinabove mentioned rules been placed in effect September 1, 1949 this case would not be before the Board. It will be noted there is no qualification attached to that portion of Article six (6) of the Chicago Agreement wherein it is provided decisions shall be effective as of September 1 1949, We construe that to mean effective for all purposes. Regardless of what employes considered their status to be during the interval existing between September 1, 1949, and the time Decision 10 was placed into effect and likewise regardless of the position of Carrier with reference to such status, the Schedule is controlling and will be used by this Board as its guide in the determination of disputes. We think the test is, had the Schedule been placed into actual

That both parties to this dispute waived hearing thereon;

That the Schedule was not violated.

AWARD