(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement (TCU) and .n particular, Rule 22, Paragraph (f), whe E. L. Jackson to displace junior extra Telegrapher Sinningson on the ;wing position, Valley Junction, Texas, beginning 12:01 AM, Thursday, August 5, 1971.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Telegrapher E. J. Jackson eight (8) hours' pay at straight time rate of the third trick Telegrapher position at
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant. an Extra Telegrapher, completed an assignment at
 Valley Junction, Texas on Friday, July 30, 1971. After a telephone conversation with his vipervisor at Pale-:tine, Texas, Claimant went on lay-off. On Tuesday, August 3, 197'_ Claimant dispatched a telegraph message to Palestine advising that he would displace a junior employee at Valiey Junction at 12:01 A.M. on A Palestine telegr-ph office at 5:09 P.M. August 3rd. The pertinent rule is Rule 22 (f) which provides as follows:

The Car Distributor, an employee covered by the Agreement wlo handles certain personnel matters in behalf of the Chief Dispatcher, h^.d completed his work at 3:00 his return to work on August 4th at 7:00 A.M, The Snpervisor denied he Claimant permission to displa seventeen hours of effective n.·-:ce was not erc,tg'a time to give the telegrapher being disnlaced sufficient notice. '.`he °alestine station is operated seven days per week arouno the clock.

 Carrier maintains that the C-r Distributor was the "Supervising Officer" designated by Carrier and the effective recipient of notices under Rule 22 (f); the Car Distributor did not receive the requisite twenty four


hours notice under the rule. Petitioner claims that the proper "Supervising Officer" was the Chief Dispatcher. Although we concur in Carrier's position that it has the right to designate anyone it wishes as its representative, we do not believe that this disputed issue is relevant since the telegram from Claimant was addressed to both men in question and Carrier denies that either one recieved the message with the required number of hours notice.

 Carrier also argues that Claimant could have telephoned the Supervising Officer rather than send denied, that telegraphers desiring to displace have historically and customarily for many years give also on the property repeatedly contended that the notice given was not sufficient for it to notify Rules specifying required notice to an employe being displaced.

 The dispute in this matter essentially is whether Claimant gave thirty hours notice or seventeen. If we accept Carrier's position Rule 22 (f) would be modified to define notice as that which is either delivered during the Supervising Officer's regular working hours or received in person. Such a construction might under many circumstances require as much as seventy two hours prior notice. Although we sympathize with Carrier's position, the clear language of the rule does not specify the "receiving" of notice, but rather the "giving" of such notice. Particularly in view of the seven day three shift operation we find that Claimant properly fulfilled the requirements of the rule when he "gave" thirty hours notice of his intention to displace, by telegram.

        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.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of January 1974.