(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

(a) Carrier violated Rule 17 of the March 1, 1953 Agreement when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate employes of the Signal Department (Susquehanna Division) after calling them by Bell telephone to report for work on Thursday, December 10, 1970.

 (b) Each and every one of the employes listed be paid 2 hours and 40 minutes at the time and one-half rate of the respective positions account violations cited in claim
E. L. Lester E. F. Sensel R. Reese
 J. L. Schultz J. 0. Card R. H. Gams
 R. D. Coon R. H. Drexler F. L. Hill
 W. I. Neer D. E. Tarkett E. G. Hill
 H. F. McDonnell T. J. Crane H. J. Overlander
 G. R. Vaughn, Jr. J. D. Smith T. L. Kishbaugh
 G. M. Begeal H. R. Evans T. A. Rohan
 J. H. Lubbe R. K. Kerr J. H. Leach
 H. Compisi R. E. Clark R. W. Lefler
 R. R. Donovan G. A. McElroy J. V. Mroz
 H. A. Kellogg G. E. Mallery R. Parks
 L. G. Potter L. J. DeLarco S. E. Gerel
 W. L. Wade W. H. Barnes T. Gibbs
 G. E. Kinney

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute is based on the nationwide railroad strike by
ber 10, 1970. Pursuant to the four Organizations' strike call, Carrier issued a
 bulletin on December 9, 1970, discontinuing positions of all crafts if the strike
 materialized. The four Organizations went on strike at 12:01 A.M. on December
 10th and about four hours later Carrier obtained a restraining order against the
 strike. At about 5:00 A.M. that morning, supervision began calling employees tell
 ing them that the strike was officially ended and that they could report for work
 at their regular assignments;at their regular starting time. BRAG refused to obey
 the court order and continued to maintain picket lines for the balance ,of the day
 -fiich employes refused to cross. Petitioner alleges that the Claimants reported
 jr work as instructed but found that the strike emergency was not aver.'


The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 17 of the Agreement when it required Claima them for reporting. It is argued that Claimants had to report for work as instructed or risk a charg Carrier should not be permitted to call employees outside regular working hours to report for work and not compensate them for a call after they have reported. Rule 17 reads in pertinent part:

The Language of Rule 17 quoted above seems clear and unambiguous. Further, the meaning of Call Rules such as this is well established and well understood. Such a rule literally means that when an employe has been released from work and is called to work and does report for duty outside of established hours, he must be paid not less than a minimum "call" as provided in the rule. In the dispute before us, Claimants were not called to perform work outside of regular working hours but on the contrary were asked to report at their regular starting time. Without speculating on alternatives available to the Organization, the reliance on Ru Rule does not support the Claim. For this reason the Claim must be denied.



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






                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1974.