employes in this Bureau held their annual meeting in Dallas, Texas during the year, 1955. At that meeting, District Chairman Mixon discussed the merits of this claim with some of the other District Chairmen and the information we have is that the District Chairmen who were conversant with this dispute agreed with the views expressed by District Chairman Mixon.

Gentlemen of your Honorable Board, just how far does an employe expect an employer to go when the employer undertakes to make every honest and sincere effort to be just and fair. Certainly to expect us to contact the Claimant under the conditions which he lives makes it next to impossible for us to comply with his wishes. He claims, of course, he is available, well if he is, why doesn't he make himself available to us in a manner similar to that followed by our other employes, but no, he, Mr. Ivey, for reasons of his own expects us to do the impossible in contacting him when work is necessary on an unassigned day. In other words, there is no doubt but what his thinking is that regardless of the circumstances, it is our obligation to notify him to report for work on one of his unassigned days no matter what difficulties we may encounter. In other words, in substance it is his opinion that the obligation is ours and we are confident that your Honorable Board will not sustain the views of the Claimant in a claim such as this because we would, under existing conditions, be everlastingly confronted with a situation which would make our position untenable.

Now if Mr. Ivey means what he says when he claims he is available, why doesn't he make himself available, but again we repeat that is something that he has not undertaken to do, therefore, we are confident that you will find this claim is without merit and must be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant seeks compensation for work of his position performed by other employes on his rest day. The Bureau had indicated its willingness to use Claimant on his rest day for the work. This dispute arose because the Bureau could not be sure before the rest day whether there would be such work to perform due to the uncertainty of arrival trains to be inspected.

Claimant lived in a trailer camp and his home did not have a phone. The camp's manager had a phone but would not accept the responsibility for receiving incoming phone calls.

The Bureau asked Claimant Ivey to telephone early on his rest day to find out whether the trains which would require his work had arrived. He was to be recompensed for the cost of telephoning. Claimant was willing to telephone only if he received three hours pay for a "call" for doing so. The Bureau would not agree to this arrangement.

A very similar situation was one of the issues in Docket No. CL-7764, Award 5026 (Lynch) involving the very same parties, including the Claimant.

We are bound by and agree with the holding there that Mr. Ivey could not claim compensation for days when he chose not to make himself reasonably available for communications with his employer.

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 Agreement has not been violated.

AWARD