to this Board on its merits. It can also be said that the circumstances in that case were different. The referee cited only one rule, the rest day rule, as the basis of his opinion.

In this case other rules must be considered if even the proper rate of pay per hour is to be determined. In that case the work was performed on two shifts of the two seven-day positions. In this case there was a two-hour call which would normally be handled by the agent and operator who occupied a five-day position. The Carrier does not agree that the reasoning in one opinion relating to a different property modifies the controlling rules of the agreement on this property, particularly so when that opinion is based on an entirely different set of circumstances.

In Award 6408, rendered on this property, Referee Whiting participating, this Board had this to say in regard to Rule 11 A(1) on which the Employes rely:

"Thus, it is clear that part II A(1) was not intended to change the rights or obligations of either party under Rule 11(b) and when that part 11 makes provision for payment of time and onehalf to 'employes required to perform service on their assigned rest days', it is referring to the rest days of the position to which the employe is then assigned, even though such assignment is merely a temporary relief or emergency assignment under Rule 11(b)."

On the basis of that award, it is clear that claimant in this case was performing service on the agent's position at Payne on his rest day. It is therefore required that he be paid in accordance with Rule 4%z TI B(2). In this case, it is unnecessary to meet any situation where claimant might have been required to perform work on a six or seven-day position or do other work because in accordance with the governing rules, he took the conditions of the particular position he worked.

The claim is without merit and must be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION Oh' BOARD: 0. M. Carnahan's regular duties are as follows:

On Sundays and Mondays he relieves the first trick at Laity, Ohio. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays he relieves third trick at Latty. On Thursday he relieves third trick at N. E. Tower. Fridays and Saturdays are his own rest days.

On Saturday, March 15, 1958, he was required to perform agent's duties from 9 A. M. to 11 A. M. at Payne, Ohio, which is a five-day position. He was compensated according to the provisions pertaining to work on rest day by an employe of a five-day position.

Claimant contends that he should have been compensated according to the provisions of Rule 41/2 II A(1), or for 8 hours at time and one-half. Rule 4%s II A(1) provides in part as follows:

"RULE 4'/.z-SERVICE ON REST DAYS.

I. This rule is for the sole purpose of determining the compensation for employes who are required to work on their assigned rest days. It is not to be used to create, enlarge or take away any rights or obligations which the carrier or the employes may have by virtue of other rules in this agreement, including those adopted or

revised to conform to the March 19, 1949 Agreement. Among others, it is to have no bearing on rules in effect on and after September 1, 1949, relating to the rights of the employes, if any, or on the obligation of the Carrier, if any, to have positions filled on any day of the week.

lI. Employes required to perform service on their assigned rest days within the hours of their regular week day assignment shall be paid on the following bases:

A(1) Employes occupying positions requiring a Sunday assignment of the regular week day hours shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half with a minimum of eight hours, whether the required service is on their regular positions or on other work.

(2) When a position is regularly required on Sunday to work more than three hours or two or more tours of duty, the position shall be considered in the same category as those referred to in paragraph A(1)."

We agree with this contention. In Award 7828 (Coffey), the Board applied an identical rule in an identical situation on another property. There the Board stated:

"According to the record, claimant regularly relieves on a position that requires a Sunday assignment of the regular week-day hours. On the day in question, he performed service on his assigned rest day within the regular hourly limits of a week-day assignment. We hold, therefore, that the basis of pay is that provided by Rule 7 (c)-1:'

We find no intention to distinguish between regular assigned employes and employes regularly assigned to relieve them insofar as compensation or work on rest days is concerned. See Award 11076 (Dorsey).

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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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 has been violated.

AWARD Claim sustained.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary