Dana E. Eischen, Referee


            (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ( (Chesapeake District)


            STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of

            Railroad Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail

            way Company (Chesapeake District) that:


            (a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Scope Rule 1, and Rules 7, 9, 17, 20, 32, 53, and 68, including past practice, when the two Leading Si to Barboursville Signal Shop was instructed, on or about last November 1, to forfeit forty (40) minutes overtime each day that had been assigned to these two positions for well over forty (40) years.


            (b) As a result of such action, we now ask that Claimants F. E. Thompson, C&0 ID #2065460, and I.D. Giesecke, C&0 ID #2065464, be allowed the forty (40) minutes overtime at their applicable rate of pay for the violation cited in part (a) of this claim.


            (c) Inasmuch as this is a continuing violation, said claim to be retroactive sixty (60) days from filing date (May 15, 1972) and to continue until such time as Carrier takes necessary corrective action to comply with the v (Carrier's File: 1-SG-305)


            OPINION OF BOARD: This case presents a dispute as to whether Carrier

            violated the controlling Agreement when it discon

            tinued a practice of over forty years' standing whereby the occupants

            of two Leading Signalmen positions in the Barboursville Signal Shop

            were paid forty minutes overtime each day for signing time cards and

            recording work. The facts out of which the dispute arose are not con

            tested.


            The record establishes that for some forty years prior to claim date the Carrier paid the overtime described supra. Claimants herein were assigned to the Lead Signalmen positions in 1970 and received until November 1971, forty signing time cards and recording work. On or about November 1, 1971 Carrier ceased to pay the 40 minutes overtime and directed Claimants to perform the signing and recording during regular work hours 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The instant claim alleging a violation of the Agreement and past practice subseque without settlement, and comes to us for resolution.


x
                Award Number 20643 Page 2

                Docket Number SG-20375


We have examined the record, the Agreement and each of the numerous awards cited by the repective parties. The Organization cites Awards 18548, 18267 and others for the sound doctrine that consistent, long standing and mutually accepted practice shows the intent of the parties when the Agreement is silent and/or not in conflict with the practice, particularly when the practice has not been abrogated by intervening negotiations. Carrier for the principle that past practice must yield to unambiguous Agreement language when there is conf turns on a determination as to whether the Agreement is silent or speaks in clear conflict as to the overtime practice involved herein.

 It is undisputed that the practice was to allow 40 minutes overtime for the two positions here involved. But the Agreement at Rule 32 expressly provides as follows: "No overtime hours will be worked without authority of a superior advance authority is not obtainable." We are persuaded that the clear language of the Agreement requires managerial approval for overtime except in cases of emergency and such approval. The record shows that this Agreement language dates from 1946 and clearly conflicts with the aforementioned practice. Under well established principles, unambiguous provisions of the Agreement generally must prevail over conflicting practice. This record does not indicate a waiver of Carrier's right to enforce the Agreement in this respect nor can we find herein support for an estoppel in gg". In light of all the foregoing we have no alternative but to deny the claims.

        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 not violated.

                Award Number 20643 Page 3

                Docket Number SG-20375

                A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of :larch 1975.