(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OP CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad

On behalf of Signal Maintainer John J. D'Arcy for all overtime hours worked by junior employee at the Riverdale Interlocker, commencing December 20, 1969, except January 14, 15, 16, 17, and February 9 through 13, 1970, and continuing thereafter unti during his off duty hours. (Carrier's File: 135-192-160 Spl.; Case No. 255 Sig.)

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves the matter of contract interpretation.
 Petitioner, in his submission to this Board, described the questions for our determination as follows:

 "The basic questions involved herein are whether or not the Carrier is required. to observe the from the same seniority district to perform overtime work when regular assignee and adjoining maintainers are not available and, if so, if Carrier was justified under the circumstances in ignoring that principle."

 In support of its position, Petitioner has referred this Board to Article 2, Rule 212(f), of the who was senior to the employee used on the dates in question, should have been called in on overtime, in view of the fact that neither the regular assignee or an adjoining assigned employee were available. The Carrier, on the other hand, avers that there is no basis far the claim in view of the fact that the company "fully complied with all the provisions of Rule 212."

 The two sections of Rule 212 that are germane to this dispute read as follows:



                  Docket Number SG-19528


Simply stated, Rule 212(e) provides that overtime work will be given to the regular assigned employee if he is available or, if he is not available, to an adjoining available employee on the seniority district. The rule is silent as to the procedure to be followed in assigning overtime insofar as the recognition of seniority is concerned,

 Ru_e 212(f), the Rule cited by Petitioner, speaks of overtime that is required of a gang or group of employees and gives preference to senior employees of the gang or group of the class involved who are available. It is clear that this rule addresses itself to overtime to be performed by a part of a gang or group of employees - more than one. If it had been the intention of the parties who negotiated thin rule to require that preference for overtime work be given to senior employees not of the gang or group involved but merely to a senior employee of the class then the rule would have so stated. It does not so state. Additionally, the record before us does not support Petitioner's contention that there was an agreed upon call list for the overtime work involved at the Riverdale Interlocker.

 It is not within the purview of this Board to read into a Rule rights or restrictions that were not specifically made a part of the Rule at the time was negotiated. The remedy to clarification lies at the bargaining table and n.._ with this Board.

        Award 16489, among others, stated:


        "We have held on any number of occasions that we follow the basic and ordinary rules of contract interpretation. We are bound by the terms and provisions of the Agreement before us. We have no power or authority and we may not make new provisions, lbrogata or alter existing provisi That is the province of the parties themselves. We endeavor to ascertain and to give effect to the intention of the parties and that intention im to be deducted from the language employed by them,"


        Further, Award 13566 stated, in part:


        "That the Agreement contains seniority provisions is not proof that seniority is to be observed under all circumstances. In the absence of a rule guaranteeing preference of overtime service to senior employees under the circumstances in the instant case, we do not infer that the parties contemplated such rights. **** Although we recognize the importance of the Seniority Rules and the need to respect them, we observe that the rights in question must exist under the Agreement before they can be impaired,"


In the light of the foregoing we do not find that the claimant was m: handled or that the agreement was violated and we will, therefore deny the claim.
                Award Humber 19752 page 3

                Docket ltu.^ber SG-19528


        FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whale record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are. respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and

    . That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A w A $ D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMN1' BOA$D

                          By Order of Third Division

ATTEST; oCa~,iJ~

        Executive Secre ary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of May 1973,

 J