(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:( (The Soo Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:




OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant held the position of Night Chief Train Dispatcher,
 a position covered by Agreement between the parties, dated
 this first day of March, 1961, herein called Agreement. His assigned hours
 in that position were 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. His regularly assigned work
 week was Tuesday through Saturday with rest days Sunday and Monday.

 Claimant worked his regularly assigned position on Tuesday, October 27, 1970, through Saturday, Monday November 2, 1970. under Rule 4 (a) of the Agreement, Claimant was contractually entitled to a rate of time and one-half should he be required to perform service on either of his rest days, with certain exceptions not shown to exist on the claim date.

 On Monday, November 2, 1970, Claimant was assigned to work vacation relief on the Chief Train Di that date through and inclusive of November 7, 1970. The Chief Train Dispatcher's position is not wi Claimant performed on the Chief Train Dispatcher's position he was paid the pro rata rate of that position. The claim before us is that he should have been paid time and one-half for working on his rest day, November 2, 1970. What he was paid for services performed on any other date of the assignment is not at issue before us.

 In the handling of the case on the property the record shows that: (1) Petitioner filed claim, in behalf of Claimant for "time and one-half for services performed on" November 2, 1970, which was one of Claimant's earned


rest days - - Petitioner cited Rule 4 (a) of the Agreement in support of its position; (2) on November 17, 1970, the Superintendent denied the claim, his reasons being given in one sentence: "I must continue to deny payment of this claim on the basis of Paragraph C - Rule 3 of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement;" (3) appeal was perfected to Carrier's chief operating officer - - Director of Personnel - - designated to handle such disputes on December 3, 1970, and having received no response from said officer the General Chairman wrote to him on March 1, 1971, imploring that he respond to the appeal; (4) no response having been received thereafter, the General Chairman, under date of April 6, 1971, wrote the Director of Personnel that since he had failed to respond to the appeal the General Chairman, was forwarding the claim to the Organization's President "for further handling as provided by the Railway Labor Act;" (5) Organization by document dated May 17, 1972, addressed to the Executive Secretary of this Division, filed intention to submit the unsettled dispute to the adjudicatory processes of the Division.

 We find that Carrier - - in the absence of contractual time limitations within which to handle appea not satisfy, to "promptly" rule on the appeal filed with it on December 3, 1970. See Section 2 - - General Purposes; and, Section 2. First and Second of the Railway Labor Act which appear under the caption "General Duties." We, therefore, in the light of the facts of record, find that the jurisdicti, of this Division was lawfully involved.

 It is now firmly established, beyond cavil, that this Board in its consideration of a dispute is confined to the record made on the property. The Carrier in its submission has grossly strayed from the record. We, in our adjudication of the dispute, are compelled to ignore - - no probative value - - Carrier's arguments addressed to facts, rules and practices not part of the record made on the property. This Board, by statute, sits as an appellate body; not as a trial forum.

 Claimant was regularly assigned as Night Chief Dispatcher, a position covered by the Agreement. Unde emoluments vested in Claimant as consideration for his services is:





                    Docket Number TD-19889


Under that provision Claimant had an absolute vested right to compensation at time and one-half rate for service which Carrier required him to perform on one of his regularly assigned rest days. In the absence of a contractual provision to the contrary, Carrier stands enjoined from evading that contractual provision by assign excluded from the Agreement. Under Section 2. of the Railway Labor Act the collective bargaining representative of employes covered by an agreement is required by statute to maintain its terms concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. Neither an individual employe within the collective bargaining unit nor his employer may divert from positive prescriptions of a collective bargaining agreement.

 We have studied Award No. 11286 which was cited by Carrier as supporting its position and argument. We find that the principle enunciated therein as supporting a denial award is not applicable in the instant case.

        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 Carrier violated the Agreement.


                      A WAR D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~·~ i
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1977.