over general rules and leave the latter to operate outside the former. See Third Division Awards 4496, 5942, 6003, 6137, 6278, 6374, 6382, 6567, 6651, and others. Rule 43(a) provides that the provisions of Rule 38 will become applicable only when section foremen are required to walk or patrol track on rest days or holidays, or when required to perform service which is not a part of their supervisory responsibilities. Rule 43(a) provides further that compensation for any service performed which is a part of the responsibilities or supervisory duties of a position, irrespective of when performed, is included in the monthly rate and no additional compensation is required.

The act of calling an employe under his jurisdiction and instructing him to report for duty at a given time and place, is one of the responsibilities or supervisory duties included in the monthly rate of a section foreman. Time consumed by a foreman in calling employes under his jurisdiction is provided for in Rule 43 (a) on the same basis as the time consumed by the foreman in handling his reports and other work incidental to his supervisory responsibilities. Such time has never been paid under the call rule, nor has any claim ever been made by Petitioner prior to the instant claim. Thus we have a duty, long recognized as constituting a responsibility of the section foreman, that is inherent in the position of foreman and which has existed since the first agreement between the parties more than thirty years ago. This duty and responsibility is expressly contemplated by Rule 43(a), which has appeared in all agreements since the first agreement was negotiated between the parties in 1922.

In conclusion, the Carrier asserts that:

1. The record clearly shows that the service made the basis of this dispute is a part of the responsibilities or supervisory duties of the claimant.

2. Rule 43 (a) provides that compensation for work which is a part of the responsibilities or supervisory duties of a section foreman's position is included in the monthly rate covering such work, and no additional compensation can be allowed under the clear provisions of the rule.

3. Third Division awards cited by Carrier covering claims involving rules similar to Rule 43 (a) clearly support Carrier's position.

In the light of the record, there can be no decision other than denial of the claim in its entirety.

x ~ s a ~

The Carrier affirmatively states that all data herein and herewith submitted has been previously submitted to the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The confronting claim involves request for payment for a call on each of two dates, namely, June 24 and 25, 1953, account of claimant performing services outside his hours in arranging for relief of a crossing watchman.

Rules 38(a) and 43(a) are relied upon by the parties. These rules provide:

Rule 38(a). "Employes notified or called to perform work not continuous with the regular work period, will be allowed a minimum of two (2) hours and forty (40) minues at time and one-half and if held on duty in excess of two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes, time and one-half will be allowed on actual minute basis."

Rule 43(a). "Employes whose responsibilities or supervisory duties require service in excess of the working hours or days assigned for the general force, will be compensated on a monthly rate to cover all services rendered, except that when such employes are required to perform work which is not a part of their responsibilities or supervisory duties, on rest days, holidays, or in excess of the established working hours, such work will be paid for on the basis provided in these rules, in addition to monthly rate. Section foremen required to walk or patrol tracks on rest days and holidays shall be paid therefor on the basis of provisions contained in Rule 38 (a). Note: See Appendix 'D' and Appendix'H'."

The Organization took the position that the functions performed by the claimant were clearly outside the "responsibilities or supervisory duties" covered by Rule 43 (a) and applying to a monthly rated position.

The respondent counters with the assertion that claimant in providing for, or making arrangements for the relief of a crossing watchman by telephone, performed neither service or work not a part of claimant's "responsibilities or supervisory duties." Nor was he "required to walk or patrol tracks on rest days and holidays," within the meaning of Rule 43 (a).

We are unimpressed by the Carrier's contention that the work performed by claimant merely accounted to the receipt of information by telephone and the exercise of his responsibility as supervisor in calling a replacement on the dates in question. If the claimant had gone to the homes of the relief men and arranged for their services it would hardly be disputed that he had performed work. The fact that he was able to achieve his purpose by handling these duties by telephone does not alter the principle.

We are of the opinion that the area or scope of the duties contemplated as coming within the "responsibilities or supervisory duties" of monthly rated positions under rules similar to if not identical with Rule 43 (a), has been properly determined by prior decisions of both this and prior Boards of Adjustment, particularly in Award 5159 of this Division wherein it teas stated:

"* * * Supervisory duties as here used have been defined 'as making up payrolls, reports, correspondence, cleanliness of outfits, meeting supervisory officers after regular ours or on Sundays, studying blue prints, preparing plans or ordering material required in their work.' Docet M-714, Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3, bearing date of July 30 1920. It is noteworthy that immediately following the portion of the award heretofore quoted, the Board said: 'All other work in excess of eight hours or on Sundays is overtime.' The decision clearly sustains the position of the Organization. We do not think that Rule 38 was intended to deprive the claimant of a 'call' under the situation here described. The rule before us was written into the Agreement after the Railroad Board of Adjustment had interpreted it. The carrying of the rule forward into the collective Agreement in the same form carries with it the interpretations previously placed upon it in the absence of a manifested intent to do otherwise. * * *"

For the reasons stated, this claim is valid.

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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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 effective Agreement.

AWARD