of the position actually worked, and having no claim under Articles 10 or 11 of the schedule agreement-their claim must be denied in its entirety.

All matters herein submitted have been handled in correspondence, dis cussed in conference, or are well known to the claimants' committee.

OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that Claimant C. E. Kelly held regular assignment (11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M.) at Beaver Street Tower. Assigned rest days of the position were Thursday and Friday of each week. The negotiated rate of pay was $2.21 per hour.

On Friday, September 7, 1956, Leverman H. S. Marsh was not available to work his assignment (4:00 P. M. to 12 midnight) at Myrtle Avenue Tower. The negotiated rate of pay for this position was $2.11 per hour. Service requirements of Carrier necessitated filling the position and in accordance with Article 5, Kelly was used to fill the temporary vacancy. He was paid for 8 hours at time and one-half ($2.11) rate.

Claimant Anderson, on dates relevant hereto, held regular assignment (7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M.) at Beaver Street Tower. Assigned rest days of the position were Monday and Tuesday of each week. The negotiated rate of pay was $2.31 per hour.

Article 11 reads:

"An employe temporarily transferred to a position paying lower rate of wages than his regular assignment, will be paid at the rate of his regular position; when transferred temporarily to a position paying a higher rate of wages, he will be paid the rate applying to such position.

"If any such employe would receive time and one-half rate through the application of Article 7 on any day such service is performed the time and one-half rate shall apply on that day or days."

Here, there is no dispute about the fact that Claimants were entitled to time and one-half pay for the work performed on the dates involved; the sole issue is whether such payment should be made at the lower rate of the position temporarily filled or at the higher rate of Claimant's regular assignment. In the absence of a clear exception to the contrary, the higher rate as specified in the first paragraph of Article 11 is applicable to both straight time and time and one-half payments, and we so rule.

Carrier argues that Claimants were not "transferred" or required to work on the dates of claim; that the work was "offered" or "proffered" and that in "voluntarily" accepting the work there was no transfer within the meaning of Article 11. In this contention we believe Carrier errs. While it may be true that Carrier "requested" the Employes to work on their rest days, on temporary vacancies, such request does have a connotation of more than an "offer." It must be remembered that the Carrier retained as the employer, the residual power to "direct" the Employe to perform service on his rest days, if he was available. Then too, both of the Claimants were, in accordance with Carrier's own position, exercising a contractual right in accepting the work.

Under the rules and the facts set forth in the record, it is our opinion that whether it be said that Carrier "requested" or "offered" or "directed" the Claimants to perform service on the rest days involved in this claim, that they were temporarily transferred within the meaning of Article 11.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD