paid for in excess of eight straight time hours will not be used in computing the 40 hour work week for the extra clerk and also will not be used in computing the number of regularly assigned extra clerks to be assigned to the extra list for the succeeding payroll period."

Therefore, there is nothing in the extra list agreement which sets aside the general agreement provisions with regard to computing the 40-hour work week for extra employes.

The Carrier's payments in this case have been made fully in accordance with all of the agreement rules, and the claim should be denied in its entirety.

All data included in this submission have been discussed in conference or by correspondence with the Employe representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced)

OPINION OF BOARD: It. is the claim of the Organization that Extra Clerk Donald E. Angel had but one rest day (Tuesday) off in his work week starting Monday, June 23, 1952 and having worked six days of the seven, he should have been paid one and one half times the basic straight time for work on Sunday, June 29, 1952, the second rest day of his work week, instead of the straight time rate paid by Carrier.

Organization cites, in support of its claim, these portions of Rule 30:

"{a) The Carrier will establish * * * a work week of 40 hours, consisting of five days of eight hours each, with two con secutive days off in each seven * * *; so far as practicable the days off shall be Saturday and Sunday.

"(h) To the extent extra * * * men may be utilized under this agreement, their days off need not be consecutive * * *:'

Organization also relies on this portion of Rule 31 (c)

"Employes worked on more than five days in a work week shall be paid one and one-half times the basic straight time rate for work on the sixth and seventh days of their work weeks * * * (exceptions which follow are not applicable here)."

Organization contends:

"Since the facts of record indicate that Angel was worked on six separate and distinct calendar days during his work week as an unassigned employe which began on Monday, June 23 and extended through Sunday, June 29, 1952, the sole dispute between the parties is whether Angel should have been allowed pay at the rate of time and one-half time for service performed from 12:01 A. M. to 8:00 A. M. on Sunday, June 29, 1952, or was he properly allowed pay for that service at the straight time rate of pay. The Employes contend that Angel should have been accorded one more rest day during the period involved in addition to Tuesday June 24, 1952. That additional day-viewing the record-should ~ave been Sunday, June 29, 1952."

Argument in behalf of Organization concedes, however, that Carrier "had the alternative of letting Claimant have Sunday as his second day off duty; or working Claimant as Carrier did, but paying him therefor at the punitive or premium rate * * *."

Carrier, however, points to the agreed fact that Claimant, having worked 4:00 P. M. to midnight, on Thursday of the week in question and the shift immediately following from 12:01 A. M. to 8:00 A. M., Friday, was paid for the latter shift at time and one-half. Also, because Claimant worked a shift starting at 12:01 to 8:00 A. M., Saturday and also worked the 4:00

P. M. to midnight shift the same day, he was paid at the punitive rate for the latter shift, the premium shifts each having come within the 24 hour range beginning with the start of his previous assignments, respectively.

"When extra clerks are worked the second tour of duty within a twenty-four hour period, and/or worked beyond forty hours in any work week, for which service time and one-half is paid, time paid for in excess of eight straight time hours will not be used in computing the 40 hour work week for the extra clerk and also will not be used in computing the number of regularly assigned extra clerks to be assigned to the extra list for the succeeding payroll period." It is argued on behalf of Carrier that:

"* * * during his work week-Monday, June 23, through and inclusive of Sunday, June 29-Claimant worked five straight time days for which he was compensated at the straight time rate and 16 hours' overtime for which he was compensated at the rate of time and one-half.

"Rule 31 (d) expressly provides that 'There shall be no overtime on overtime' and 'neither shall overtime hours paid for * * * be utilized in computing the 40 hours per week. * * *' Accordingly the sixteen hours Claimant worked and was paid for as overtime during his work week cannot be used in computing the 40 hours per week. Further, Section 5 (c) in the Memorandum of Agreement expressly provides that,-

hours will not be used in computing the 40 hour work week

for the extra clerk.'

"Inasmuch as the sixteen hours Claimant worked and was paid for as overtime cannot be used in computing the forty hours in his work week. Rule 31 (c) relied on by Petitioner is neither applicable nor was it violated. Claimant has been properly paid and is not entitled to the additional compensation claimed."

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD