limited amount of service performed on his rest days he was called, used and compensated in accordance with Rules 37 (b-5), 37 (b-6) and 43, supra.

At the risk of being redundant may we in conclusion again respectfully suggest that the Carrier's eventual establishment of the Porter-Trucker position on a seven-day basis not be misunderstood or misinterpreted. The action was not, as has previously been stated and confirmed by appropriate authority, due to any contractual obligation. On the contrary that action was prompted primarily by a desire to dispose of this controversy. And while it cannot, from a strictly monetary standpoint, be viewed as a generous concession since the Carrier was, on the call basis, paying fifteen straighttime hours, whereas, when estabished on a seven-ay basis and placing the position in a pool or relief purposes the required payment was but one additional hour, or a total of sixteen straight-time hours, at the same time, under the circumstances here existing, one cannot escape the realization and obvious conclusion that the Carrier's action was one of administrative cooperation beyond that which it was contractually required to go.

In the interest of consistency, and in recognition of the plain provisions and obviously intended application of the applicable and governing rules of the agreement herembefore cited, it is the position of Carrier that claimant has been properly compensated and, this being so, the Employes' contention should accordingly be dismissed and the accompanying claim unqualifiedly denied.

Without prejudice to our position that the Agreement does not authorize any payment at all in this case, the Carrier desires to protest a punitive payment even if it should be held that the position should have been a sevenday one. If it had actually been a seven day position the Saturdays would have been pro rata days and this claimant has not performed service for the additional time and one-half pay sought. In a long line of awards, including 2346, 3232 3504, 4037, 4616, 4828, 5200, 5476, 5607 and 5887 your Board has ruled that the right to perform work is not the equivalent of work performed insofar as the overtime rule is concerned. Not more than the difference between 8 hours pro rata and payment already made could be justified even it should be held that the Agreement was violated.

The substance of matters contained herein has been the subject of discussion in conference and/or correspondence between the parties.

(Exhibits not reproduced)

OPINION OF BOARD: From December 5, 1953 through March 7, 1954 the claimant was assigned a regular recurring call on his Saturday rest day to handle mail and baggage on and off Trains 3 and 4 at Eunice, La. He was paid a minimum call of two hours at time and one-half.

Rule 37(c-5) was adopted as part of the 40-Hour Week Agreement, effective September 1, 1949. It provides as follows:

(c-5) Service on Rest Days. Service rendered by employes on assigned rest days shall be paid for under Rule 43 unless relieving an employe assigned to such day in which case they will be paid eight (8) hours at the rate of the position occupied or their regular rate, whichever is higher.

Certain disputes as to rest day service resulted in Decision No. 5 of the 40-Hour Week Committee, which so far as pertinent reads as follows:

"First, that service rendered by an employe on his assigned rest day will be paid for under applicable call rules.

Second, that such rights as the Carriers had prior to September 1, 1949, to make the regularly recurring calls or part time assign-

ments on rest days will continue to exist on and after September 1, 1949,except that such rights are thereafter extended to two rest days, whereas they formerly applied only to one."

The call rule in this case reads as follows:

"RULE 43 . NOTIFIED OR CALLED

(a) Except as provided in Paragraph (b) of this rule, employes notified or called to perform work not continuous with, before or after the regular work period, or on Sundays and specified holidays, shall be allowed a minimum of three (3) hours for two (2) hours work or less, and if held on duty in excess of two (2) hours, time and one-half will be allowed on a minute basis.

(b) Employes who are called regularly on Sundays and specified holidays shall be allowed a minimum of eight (S) hours at time and one-half rate."

That rule establishes the minimum pay allowance for three situations, to-wit, (1) employes called to work not continuous with but before or after their assigned hours, (2) employes called sporadically on Sundays or Holidays, and (3) employes called regularly on Sundays or Holidays. Since Sundays were generally the one rest day prior to September 1, 1949, referred to in Decision No. 5 of the 40-Hour Week Committee, it appears that under such decision the Sunday provisions of the call rule governing regularly recurring calls apply to both rest days, which are Saturday and Sunday in this case. Since the service here involved falls within situation No. 3 above, governed by Rule 43 (b), the claim must be sustained.

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 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

The agreement was violated

AWARD