Claimant resides in St. Louis, about twenty (20) highway miles from the telegraph office in St. Charles, and the regular assigned Agent-telegrapher at St. Charles resides in Augusta, Missouri, 27.2 rail miles from St. Charles.

Saturday, October 24, 1964, freight train No. 53 departed Baden (freight terminal St. Louis) at 7:05 P. M. with train order No. 105 requiring this train to wait at Hartsburg until 12:10 A. M., Easley until 12:20 A. M., for freight train No. 52. About 9:20 P. M., a member of the train crew on No. 53 at St. Charles advised train dispatcher on telephone that they were setting out a bad order car with broken train line. Train dispatcher then issued train order No. 127 directing train No. 53 to meet No. 52 at Mokane. This order was made complete at 9:20 P. M.

Claim for two-hour minimum call was made by Telegrapher Turner account Conductor on train No. 53 copying train order No. 127 at St. Charles, completed 9:20 P. M., October 24, 1964. The Carrier declined the claim as indicated in copy of correspondence attached as Carrier's Exhibit A.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The involved rule in this dispute is Rule 1(e) of the Agreement, which is:

"No employe other than covered by this Agreement and Train Dispatchers will be permitted to handle train orders at Telegraph or Telephone offices where a Telegrapher is employed and is available, or can be promptly located except in an emergency, in which case the telegrapher will be paid for the call (and the dispatcher will notify the Superintendent so proper record and allowance will be made)."

The record discloses that on Saturday, October 24, 1964 at 9:20 P. M., Carrier permitted a Conductor to receive and copy a train order. Claimant was the regularly assigned rest day relief telegrapher at the point involved. Carrier attempts to justify its action in this dispute by first asserting that Claimant lived a substantial distance from the duty station, and was thus not available; and, secondly, urging this Board to find that the Organization did not present a prima facie case for the reason that no proof or evidence was introduced showing that Claimant was available. This Board cannot uphold Carrier's position in this dispute.

The language in Rule 1(e) of the Agreement is couched in clear and unequivocal terms. It, therefore, cannot be subjected to more than one interpretation. The Awards cited by the Organization make it abundantly clear that Carrier has a duty to, at the very least, make an attempt to locate the regularly assigned employe. The record in this dispute is absolutely void of evidence of any attempt to locate this Claimant being made. The burden of proving an attempt to locate the employe is on the Carrier. The Organization does not have the burden of proving availability of an employe unless Carrier can show a good faith attempt was made to locate such employe. Absent any showing that a reasonable effort was made by Carrier to call the employe, the defense of "availability" to a Claim such as this cannot be asserted. The distance an employe lives from a duty station is not pertinent to this dispute for the reason that it has not been made a subject or part of the Agreement. This Board is without power to add to the Agreement a

qualification that does not exist. This is in keeping with the well established principles set out in Third Division Awards Nos. 8260, 11520, 14052, 15717, and 15730; also Third Division (Supplemental) Awards Nos. 11464, 13267, 14656, 14657, and 14658. Accordingly, this Claim will be sustained.

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 was violated.

AWARD