(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it paid Foreman M. A. Robertson and Trackmen J. C. Juarez and K. E. Staley at their respective straight-time rates instead of their respective time and one-half rates for one of the 10 - 1 2 hours each worked on Sunday, September 23, 1973 (System File L-126-1466/10-P-492).

 (2) Tote Carrier further violated the Agreement when it paid Foreman E. L. Griffith and Trackmen at their respective straight-time rates instead of their respective time and one-half rates for one of the 9 - 1/2 hours each worked on Saturday, September 29, 197
(3) Each of the claimants named in (1) and (2) above now be allowed one hour of additional pay at their respective half-time rates.

 OPINION OF BOARD: A reading of the record shows there is no dispute as the
 facts from which this case arose. This dispute stems
 from Carrier's application of the Rest Day Rule of the collective bargaining
 Agreement.

 Carrier's basic contention is that Rule 23 - Meal Period - is applicabl'E regardless of the issu
The Organization's contention correctly stated that Rule 23 has no applicability to work arising under Rule 25. Rule 25 provides the proper payment accruing to employe and specified holidays. Furthermore, a rest day or a holiday is an unassigned work day in which there are no regularly established hours of service or a specific assignment of a meal period as one finds in a regularly assigned day and work week. An employe who may be called out to perform service under Rule 25 is a§sured of payment of two hours and forty minutes at his respective overtime rate of pay, event his service is used for a period longer than the minimum specified he is then compensated on a minute basis for the full time worked.



We must look to the Parties' intention, if a meal period becomes involved in Rest Day Service. The interpretation to Rule 23 provides that employes required to render overtime service shall be accorded meal periods corresponding as nearly as practicable to their normal meal period without deduction in pay or termination of continuous service.

 Under all conditions and rules here present, there should be no question but that Claimants are entitled to pay at their respective time and one-half rates for all of the hours they worked on their respective rest days.

 Carrier concedes that members of the Gang ate while they worked and it was a rest day for the Gang.

 Carrier contends that if the meal is not afforded within the allowed or agreed time limit and is worked, the meal period will be paid for at prorata rate.

 However, there is no agreed to time limit or meal period on a rest day. It is conceded that the Gangs were assigned to a Monday through Friday work week with daily hours of 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., exclusive of a one (1) hour meal period from 12 Noon to 1 P.M., with Saturdays and Sundays as rest days. Rest days are unassigned days in which no regular hours are scheduled or to be worked unless the employes are specifically called for that day.

 It is reasonable and logical that if there are no assigned hours for rest days thete can be no assigned meal period.

 Carrier's argument lacks a solid rationale that employes called for Rest Day service at the time and one-half rate be colpensated for one hour of the total time at the pro rata rate for work performed.



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









ATTEST:
        a.4w 1A 04~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1976.

 7