All data contained herein have been presented to or are known to the Petitioner.

OPINION OF BOARD: There is no dispute between the parties on relevant facts. Claimant was a regularly assigned Relief Train Dispatcher with assigned rest days Wednesday and Thursday. On each of the dates set forth in the claim, which fell on one or the other of the aforesaid rest days, Claimant filled a temporary vacancy as Chief Train Dispatcher, and was compensated for such service at the pro rata rate of the Chief Train Dispatcher position. Claim is made for the difference between the pro-rata and punitive rate, account of such service being performed on the rest days of the Relief Train Dispatcher position, relying on Article 3 (a), the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

"3 (a). * * * A regularly assigned train dispatcher required to perform service on the rest day assigned to his position will be paid at rate of time and one-half. * * *"

It is asserted by the Organization that this rule is clear and unambiguous, there is a past practice on this property of paying time and onehalf for such service under circumstances present here, and finally that prior awards of this Board sustain the Organization's position.

The Respondent denies that Article 3 (a), quoted above is applicable here, taking the position that the parties negotiated and placed in the effective Agreement a rule, Article 5 (k), to establish the compensation of Train Dispatchers who filled temporary vacancies on such latter position. It was asserted that Article 5 (k) which reads as follows:

"A qualified Train Dispatcher from the Dispatching Office will be used to relieve Chief Train Dispatchers during vacation periods and other temporary vacancies and such Train Dispatchers will be compensated at the straight time rate applicable to the position worked."

is a special Article, specifically limiting compensation to the straight time rate applicable to he position worked, under circumstances here present, and being a special Article, is controlling, as against the provisions of Article 3 (a), a general Article. he Respondent further asserted that Article 5 (k) contained no exception which would justify the application of a punitive rate for the work here performed. In connection with the alleged settlements on the property the Respondent stated that the same were made in error.

The confronting question concerns the proper rate for a regularly assigned Train Dispatcher, who, on his rest days, fills a temporary vacancy on a Chief Train Dispatcher's position, and thereby raises the issue of whether or not Article 3(a) or 5 (k) is controlling. Article 3 (a) in substance establishes rest days for both regularly assigned and extra Train Dispatchers, and further establishes compensation for regularly assigned Dispatchers who perform service on their rest days, as well as compensation for extra Dispatchers who perform work beyond a stated amount, during a specified period.

Claimant here was a regularly assigned Relief Train Dispatcher, so therefore it is with that portion of Article 3 (a) with which we are here concerned. This Board in numerous Awards has interpreted Articles identical with 3(a) holding that:

"* * * a regularly assigned dispatcher is entitled to time and one-half for any work which he may be required to perform for the Carrier on any of the regularly assigned days of rest of his position and that when he works relief for a chief dispatcher on the assigned rest day of his own position he is entitled to such pay. * * *" Award 4012.

While we think this line of decisions is based on a sound premise, here however, we are confronted with another Article (5 (k) ) pertaining to service

performed as a Chief Train Dispatcher which was not present in all of the cases which resulted in decisions of a like nature as that in Award 4012. We cannot agree with the Respondent that Article 5(k) has the effect of a special rule nullifying premium pay for a regularly assigned Relief Train Dispatcher, who, on his rest day, fills a temporary vacancy performing service as a Cief rain Dispatcher. We are of the opinion that Article 5(k) has the effect of placing relief service for the Chief Train Dispatcher within the scope of the Agreement, providing by whom and under what circumstances temporary vacancies in the Chief Train Dispatcher position will be filled; at the same time limiting payment for any service performed as Chief Train Dispatcher to the straight time rate of the Dispatcher position worked. This claim is meritorious.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties to this dispute waived oral hearing thereon;

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