sickness are to be paid up to certain number of days when no additional expense to the Carrier is involved.

In the light of the foregoing, and in harmony with the plain provisions of the Agreement, particularly Rule 59 (c), the contention of the employes should be summarily dismissed and the accompanying claim unqualifiedly denied.

All data in support of the Carrier's position has been submitted to the Organization and made a part of the particular question here in dispute. The right to answer any data not previously submitted to the Carrier by the Organization is reserved by the Carrier.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: AS will be noted from the reading of the claim it is based upon the Carrier's dismissal of Claimant from his position after he had worked five hours and twenty minutes when according to him he should have been permitted to work the full eight hours and paid for the full day. The work was on his rest day.

The Organization contends that Claimant's case is covered by Rules 13 and 26 (c) both of which rules "provide short vacancies 'WILL BE FILLED.' (Emphasis supplied)" i. e. worked for the full eight hours.

Carrier on the other hand contends Claimant was properly paid under Rule 59 (c)--Service on Rest Days--"Service rendered by an employe on his assigned rest days shall be paid for under call Rule 60 * * *"

The Organization argues "The sole purpose of the Rule (59 (c) supra) as it appears in our Agreement with the S. P. & S. is to provide for time allowances to employes called on their rest days for overtime service that is, generally speaking, for service normally attached to their own job that arises in many instances on five and six day positions. The instant case is not of that type."

Now it may very well be as the representative of the employes on this Board stated in his oral argument that the situation on this Carrier at the time "contemplated" the application of the rules (13 and 26 (c) supra) but whatever the Claimant did on this particular tour of duty it was "service rendered" within the meaning of Rule 59 (c) entitling the Carrier to pay him under Call Rule 60, which was done.

Conceding that the claim is good under 59 (c) as amended by the agreement between these parties effective August 1, 1957, we are not permitted to read the Organization's "contemplation" into the rule prior to that time.

It is a well known rule of construction that where there is a dispute as to the possible application of two conflicting rules, that the one having specific application must be used. This dispute never would have arisen if Claimant had not been called to work on his "rest" day and Rule 59 (c) applies specifically to work on "rest" days, notwithstanding the fact that the situation involved also created a "short" vacancy as contended for by the Organization, but Rules 13 and 26 (c) do not have specific application here.

Our conclusion is that the Carrier did not violate the agreement, and the claim must be denied.

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 the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD