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

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement, in particular, Rules 1, 24, 26 (a) and 48 (a), on M when it required and/or permitted train conductors at Neodesha, Kansas, who are not covered by the Clerks' Agreement, to copy and/or handle train orders on claimant's rest day (Carrier file 380-393).

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. L. L. Seitz for a call pursuant to Rule 26 (a) of the Agreement, account being denied his contractual rights to perform the Telegrapher work here involved for March 25 and April 1, 1973.

 OPINION OF BOARD: As we read this record the facts are not disputed
 and, indeed, that a violation occurred is ad
 mitted by Carrier. The only justiciable issue before us is the basis
 and amount of recoverable damages.

 The record shows that the Claimant was the regularly assigned Star Agent - Telegrapher, Monday through Saturday 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., with Sunday rest day, at Neodesha, Kansas. On Sunday, March 25, 1973, E and Sunday, April 1, 1973, rest days for Claimant, train conductors copied a train order from dispatcher at Neodesha. Claimant sought payment of 5 hours and 20 minutes at the punitive rate for each of these occurrences, citing Rule 26(a) of the March 1, 1973 Agreement. Carrier on the property offered repeatedly to settle the claim on the payment of a call, i.e., 3 hours at the pro rata rate under Rule 48 of the Agreement, for each occurrence. Thus the sole issue presented for our consideration is whether Rule 25(ai or Rule 48 should govern recovery in the instant case.

 Petitioner relies on Rule 26(a) which governs payment for "services rendered by employes on their assigned rest day." The error of this position is basically that Claimant rendered no service on either claim date. As we read Rule 26(a) it clearly contemplates the actual performance or rendering of service by an employe on his assigned rest day. It is undisputed that Claimant's rest day was not interrupted and he was not required to render service on that day.


We are additionally persuaded by the fact that Rule 48 is a special rule specifically and traditionally utilitized by the parties in situations such as here presented and that said Rule was readopted and reaffirmed in the March 1, 1973 Agreement. A similar Rule was construed by Special Hoard of Adjustment No. 305, Award No. 39, involving these parties in a manner supportive of Carrier's position herein.

 We shall sustain the claim that Rule 48(a) of the Agreement was violated on March 25 and April 1 Claimant should be compensated at the call rate of three hours pro rata for each occurrence.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Mete Y" 0
      Executive :,e_retary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January 1976.