agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take any such action.

CONCLUSION

The Carrier has shown that the Claimant performed service on two eight-hour tours of duty on a day within the provisions of one of the exceptions to the overtime rule set forth in the applicable Agreement; that he was properly compensated in accordance with this exception; that the Carrier has not violated any provisions of the applicable Agreement; and that, therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to the compensation which he claims.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the claim here before your Honorable Board is not supported by the facts or by the Movement Directors' portion-Part 11-of the Agreement with employes represented by the American Train Dispatchers Association and should be denied.

All data contained herein have been presented to the employes involved or to his duly authorized representative.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The sole question for determination in this case is the meaning of Regulation 4-A-2(a) of Part lI of the Agreement between the Carrier and the Employes represented by the Train Dispatchers Association, effective July 1, 1950.

Claimant, as Assistant Movement Director in the New York region worked as Extra Assistant Movement Director on the second trick on June 8, 1956 from 3 P. M. to 11 P. M., and in the same capacity on the third trick from 11 P. M. June 8 to 7 A. M. July 9, 1956. For this entire service of sixteen consecutive hours he was paid at the pro-rata rate, and the Employe maintains that he should have been paid at time and one-half rate for the third trick under Regulation 4-A-2(a). Claim was presented for the difference, and denied by the Carrier on the ground that the Regulation involved does not support the interpretation claimed by the Dispatchers.

Regulation 4-A-2(a) governing Movement Directors (which includes Assistant Movement Directors) was adopted verbatim, except for changes in job titles, from a 1943 Agreement between the same parties, and is in words and figures as follows:

"4-A-2. (a) Movement Directors shall be paid on an actual minute basis at the rate of time and one-half for all time worked, continuous with and before or after their regular work period in excess of eight (8) hours, exclusive of the time required to make transfer in any day; except that, a relief Movement Director working on two (2) positions covered by his regular assignment, and an extra Movement Director working as such on two (2) positions, on any day, shall be paid at the straight time rate for the first eight (8) hours of service on each position."

The Carrier cites two similar instances on the Pittsburgh and Conemaugh Divisions on August 8, 1954 in each of which it informed the General Chairman of the Dispatchers of its position that Regulation 4-A-2(a) does not support the claim of an extra Movement Director for time and one half for

a second tour of duty within twenty-four hours. The Carrier contends that as the Organization did not further progress these claims, it impliedly acknowledged the validity of the Carrier's interpretation of the Regulation. The Organization asserts that the 1954 cases were not further progressed because the Carrier subsequently resumed paying the penalty rate for the second tour of duty under like circumstances.

The Carrier objects to exhibits attached to the Employes reply to the Carrier's submission on the ground that such material was not made available during discussions on the property. The seven exhibits referred to are unnecessary to and will not be considered in interpretation of the pertinent Regulation in view of the objection made. Neither do we construe the Employes abandonment of the 1954 claims under Regulation 4-A-2(a) as an Agreement with the Carrier's interpretation of said Regulation.

We find the Employes' interpretation to be the correct one. We think the plain purpose of the exception to the penalty payment for time worked in excess of eight hours was to give recognition to the normal and reasonable requirements of a relief Movement Director's Assignment when called on to cover two positions within a span of twenty four hours, viz., in the case of his regular assignments, and when the relief Movement Director's assignment is filled by an extra Movement Director. We read the exception to 4-A-2(a) as a complete sentence embodying two aspects, and are of the Opinion that the principal subject thereof is a relief Movement Director. It was such position that the contracting parties were excepting from the general requirement of time and one-half for work in excess of eight hours in a twenty four hour day. If such were not the case, there would be no logical reason for the use of the words "as such". If the exception were to be extended to an extra Movement Director working in that capacity on two positions on any day other than in the regular assignment of a relief Movement Director, it would have been a simple matter to accomplish that result by not incorporating the words as such.

Additional support for this meaning of the language of the Regulation, if needed, may be found in the unchallenged history of a non-controversial application of this interpretation for eleven years preceding 1954.

A universal rule of construction is that where the language used is susceptible of two meanings, one of which would lead to a logical or sensible result, and the other to an illogical or unreasonable result, the former interpretation is to be preferred as the result intended by the contracting parties. See Award 6664.

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

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 Agreement was violated.

AWARD