PARTIES Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee


                    (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen TO DISPUTE:

                            (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company


                STATEMENP OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood

                of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company.


I
 I
                (a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, Particularly Rules 17 and 62, when it did not properly compensate Signal Maintainer D. 0. Kidd for 5-6/12 overtime hours worked on March 18, 1971.


                (b) Carrier should now pay to Mr. D. 0. Kidd 5-6/12 hours time at his hourly overtime rate.


                      ZCarrier's File: L-130-47_1%


                OPINION OF BOARD: On March 17, 1971 a train derailment occurred at

                Missouri Division Junction, destroying a switch and a switch machine. A straight rail was installed on the 17th; on the 18th the switch was replaced and the Claimant Signal Maintainer installed a secondhand switch machine. If the switch machine had operated properly upon installation, the installation would have been completed within Claimant's regular hours. However, because of improper operation, the switch machin internally, and re-installed. As a result the Claimant worked 5~ hours beyond his regular hours to complete the job of installing the switch machine. The Claimant, a monthly rated employee, now claims overtime for the 5k hours.


j The pertinent agreement provisions
                fourth paragraphs of Rule 62, read as follows:

                                                d in f the third and


                      "RULE 62. MONTHLY RATED SIGNAL MAINTAMRS:


                      No overtime is allowed for time worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day on the regularly assigned five (5) days per week tae employee is scheduled to work, nor on the first scheduled rest day (6th day) of the work week or holidays- on the other hand, no time is to be deducted unless the employee lays off on his own accord.

                              Award Number 20208


I Docket Number SG-19896
                                                      Page 2


                      "On the regularly assigned five (5) days per week the employee is scheduled to work, ordinary Maintenance and Construction work will not be required outside of their bulletined assigned hours. This does not apply to such travel time or work a Maintainer might run into when in completing a certain job worked on, during the day he might leave


                      regu

                      lar assigned or return thereto outside his regu-

i gned hours,

                The Employes say the 5j hours of disputed work involved "ordinary Maintenance and Construction work" as such term is used in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of Rule 62; in consequence, the disputed work is gover which provides that "ordinary Maintenance and Construction work will not be required outside of...assigned hours." The Carrier's response is that it merely exercised its prerogative under the third and fourth Paragraphs of Rule 62 to require a monthly rated signal maintainer to perform work that he "might run into" on a job which he had begun but not completed during his regular hours. The Carrier also says the work was not ordi been deferred, but resulted from a derailment of the previous day.


                      On the basis of the foregoing, and the whole record, we con-

. clude that the work following Claimants regular hours was work "run
                into" within the meaning of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph

                of Rule 62. Thus, irrespective of whether Carrier's urgency to have

                the switch installed was slight or great, the Carrier is not required

                to pay:overtime. We are mindful that the nature of the fourth paragraph

                of Rule 62 is such that it could possibly be misused by the Carrier. We

                are also mindful that, in this case, a lengthy period was required to

                perform the work "run into" in completing a certain job. For these

                reasons we have studied the facts closely. We note though, that the

                Employes did not dispute that the work would have been completed within

                regular hours if all had gone well. Nor did the Employes contend that

                the Carrier could have foreseen the malfunctioning of the switch machine,

                that the Carrier had any knowledge about the machine's defects which

                would have relieved Claimant of the duty to complete the job, or that the

                job could have gone over until the next day. The Employes' Rebuttal does

                suggest that Claimant made repairs to the second-hand switch machine which

                should have been made by the shop forces. If established of record, this

                point might have placed the case in a different posture; however, the

                argument was not raised on the property and therefore it cannot be con

                sidered now. Consequently, in the facts which obtain here, we cannot

                conclude that the Carrier's action was not in conformity with the Agree

                ment. We shall therefore deny the claim.

                Award Number 20208 Docket NumberSG-19896

                                        Page 3


        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 the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdicti3n over the dispute involved herein; an
        The Agreement was not violated.


                  A W=


        Claim denied.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD AD,TISS i , r., Rnp;z7

                      By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~~ ~~/ E:cecutive Secretary


Dated at C:iicago, 711inois, this 11th day ofApril 1974.