was not complied with, the rule does not contain any provision for penalty if it is violated and the Board is without authority to assess penalties when none are specified in the rules. This Board has held on a number of occasions that claims must be limited to the loss suffered. Third Division Award 6417 is expressive of this principle and the following is quoted therefrom:

"Stafford, or the men assigned to the job at Indianapolis, or his brother clerks who might, conjecturally speaking, have been assigned this work have, by the Carrier's action, been deprived of duties which they might have been able to crowd into their day's work schedule, or failing that would have had a half-hour's work left over for their relief or, in the final alternative would have received one-half hour's overtime per day.

Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that there has been a technical violation of the rules resulting in no loss to the claimant and he is therefore entitled to no penalty; but we also are of the opinion that the matter should be negotiated by the parties if the Carrier does not desist from continuing the practice complained of."

Claimants in this case did not suffer any loss under Rule 9 (c) and this fact is obvious from the record regardless of the question of violation of the rules. They actually gained in compensation by reason of being moved to the higher rated positions. To sustain this claim as presented is to say that each claimant is entitled to two positions, their regular assignment and the position they desired to work. Claimants were properly detached from their regular assignments during this period when they performed relief work, and, therefore, the Overtime Rule is not applicable to the service performed.

The Employes have cited Rules 5, 13, 25 and 26 of the Agreement as support for this claim, but they have not explained the precise application of those rules to this case. Rule 5 is the Seniority Rule. Rule 13 is the Starting Time Rule. Rule 25 is the Overtime and Calls Rule. Rule 26 is the Rest Day, Holiday and Sunday Work Rule. Carrier cannot see that these rules have been violated or that they are even applicable to this situation.

Carrier's position is that claimants were properly used in line with their desires during the claim period, that there was not a violation of any of the rules of the agreement, that this manner of handling was in keeping with an established practice on the property to which the Employes have acquiesced and that neither the claimants nor any other employe suffered any loss during this claim period but actually gained because of this manner of handling. In view of these facts, Carrier respectfully requests that the claims be denied.

(Exhibit= not reproduced.)

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board finds:

That the dispute was certified to the Third Division of the Adjustment Board ex parte by the complainant party; and

The dispute involved herein was referred to the National Disputes Committee established by Memorandum Agreement dated May 31, 1963, to decide disputes involving interpretations on applications of certain stated provisions of specified National Non-operating Employe Agreements. On March 17 1965, that Committee rendered the following Findings and Decision (NDC Decision 11):

"FINDINGS: (ART. V) The General Chairman of Clerks has taken the position that Assistant General Manager Elledge's letter of December 18, 1959 to the General Chairman was not in compliance with Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement (Rule 43 of the clerks' schedule agreement) in that it did not specifically state that the claims were denied.

Such letter stated in part:

`The manner of relieving the Trainmaster's Clerk at McGehee follows an old practice that has been in vogue at McGehee for a number of years, and I admit that it has no contract authority and it shall be my purpose to see that the Trainmaster's Clerk relief at McGehee in the future is handled in line with the agreement. * * *

In view of this move having been made to the benefit of Clerk on the station roster, I do not feel the Carrier should be penalized for something that the employes themselves do not want. I am further of the opinion that if there is any cause for the claim it would rest with an unidentified person on the Southern District roster, and my investigation along this line indicates there was no one available desiring this position, therefore, we feel the claim should be withdrawn!

The National Disputes Committee rules that such letter in fact, denied the claims.

DECISION: The Carrier's letter of December 18, 1959 constituted a disallowance of the claims involved, in compliance with Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.

This decision disposes of the issues under Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement. The docket is returned to the Third Division, NRAB, for disposition in accordance with Paragraph 8 of the Memorandum Agreement of May 31, 1963."

AWARD