OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants herein were required to perform socalled "tag end rest day" relief service on a position at Waterloo, Iowa when there was no regular relief employe assigned on specified dates during 1960. Claimants are extra employes, who were compensated for such relief service at the pro rata rate and each now claims an additional allowance in the form of deadhead compensation.

The issue before this Division for determination is whether or not an extra employe, who is used to perform "tag end rest day" relief service at Waterloo, Iowa, pursuant to Rule 8, Section 1 (e) (6) of the Agreement between the parties, is entitled to deadhead compensation.

Petitioner relies upon the language contained in Rule 20 of the Agreement and contends that deadheading compensation is payable to extra employes whenever deadheading is required on Carrier's business, unless such compensation would serve as a duplicate payment, or an extra employe is exercising his seniority rights. Rule 20 reads as follows:

"RULE 20.

Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, extra employes deadheading on Company's business shall be paid for the actual time consumed, computed from departing time to arriving time including layover time, at the rate of position relieved, on the minute basis; such payment not to exceed eight (8) hours for each twenty-four (24) hours computed from departing time. This will not apply when deadheading exclusively within a terminal, or when payment otherwise accrues which would serve as a duplicate. Deadheading resulting from the exercise of seniority rights shall not be paid for."

(Emphasis ours.)

Petitioner further contends that the issue before us previously has been decided in our Award 10030 under an Agreement containing substantially the same applicable Rules.

Carrier contends that the first clause contained in Rule 20 is of preponderant importance and that Rule 8, Section 1 (e) (4) provides that any

employes who perform relief service under Rule 8 shall not be paid expense allowance or for deadheading. Carrier avers that applicable rules involved in our previous Award 10030 were substantially different from the controlling language found in the Agreement between the parties in the instant dispute and that said award is readily distinguishable.

The parties agree that Claimants are extra relief employes, who were required to perform rest day relief service pursuant to Rule 8, Section 1(e) (6) of the Agreement which provides as follows:

"Where it is not practicable, because of the number of rest days involved or because of location of positions to cover all rest days on a seniority district by establishment of regular relief assignments of five (5) days, work on rest days not covered by such assignments may be performed by qualified extra men if available who will be paid pro rata rates therefore."

Rule 8, Section 1 (e) (4) in part provides:

"Employes who perform relief service under this Rule 8 shall not be paid expense allowance or for deadheading." (Emphasis ours.)

Rule 20 commences with the clause "Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, . . " which language constitutes a broad limitation on its applicability and subordinates the provisions for compensation contained therein to any other provisions of the Agreement concerning payment or nonpayment for deadheading, including the clear and unambiguous language found in Rule 8, Section 1 (e) (4).

The record discloses that Rule 8 had its genesis in National Mediation Board Case A-2070 (July 13, 1945). Several years later the parties revised their Agreement and the present language found in both Rule 20 and Rule 8, incorporates the terms of Case A-2070.

In our Award 10030, the language of the pertinent Rule expressly stated that it was only applicable to employes holding regular relief assignments and we found it was not applicable to extra employes who had performed similar service to that involved in the instant dispute. Contrarily, the controlling language found in Rule 8, Section 1 (e) (4) of the Agreement involved in the present dispute is applicable to all employes, regular or extra, performing rest day relief service under said Rule and specifically precludes the payment of deadheading compensation to extra employes where the deadheading is for rest day relief service pursuant to Section 1 (e) (6) of Rule 8.

The Award cited and relied on by Petitioner is clearly distinguishable because of a substantial difference in the language of the applicable Rules. If we were to sustain Petitioner's contention such a determination would constitute a revision of the pertinent provisions of the Agreement by interpretation. We have no such authority. Awards 7296, 9198, 13310. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.

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 Agreement has not been violated.

AWARD

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary