(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen ]PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al.

 In behalf of J. S. White Signa3sen, Headquarters Meridian, Miss., assigned working hours 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, one hour lunch period, for 144 hours straight tine and 128 half tine hours account of his working hours being changed to avoid paying him overtime, and because he was not alloyed to w
On February 19, 1974 carrier changed Mr. J. S. White's working hours from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM (his regular assignsieat) to 5:30 PM to 1:30 AM which is a violation of the present Signalsens Agreement with Southern Railway Co. Mr. White worked this shift which started at 5:30 PM for about four weeks while rail gang was laying rail in the vicinity of Meridian, Miss.

 1. Claim is for 8 hours straight tine for each of the following days that he was not permitted to work his regular assigned hogs. February 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27,28 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, up 129 13, 14, 15, 1974, or a total of 144 hours straight tins. The 8 hours claimed an each of the above nosed dates are to be in addition to say pay he has already received or due him.

 2. Clain is for half tine for the following days that he was only paid 8 hours straight time while working dram 5:30 PM to 1:30 AM. The days are as follows: February 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, and March 1, 5, 6. 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 1974 or a total of 128 half tine hours or 64 hours straight time. This time claimed is to be in addition to any pay he any have already received or due him bemuse Mr. White was not paid time and one half for hours worked between 5:30 PM and 1:30 AM.

 Carrier has violated the present Signalmens Agreement particularly Rules 27a and Bale 34 when Mr. J. S. White was required to suspend work during his regular assigned hours and required to go to work at 5:30 PM in the evening and work an 8 hour shift at the straight tins rate of pay. Carrier's file SG-38)


OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant vas regularly assigned to a Signalman's posi
 tion with hours of 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., Monday
 through Friday. On February 19th, 1974, Claimant was assigned to work from
 5:30 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. and continued an this schedule until !larch 15th; the
 change was occasioned by the work of a rail gang engaged in a night rail
 laying operation in the area. Claimant was paid time and one half for the
 first day on the night shift end the same rate for his first day he was
 back on the day shift, March 18th. He had been given forty-eight hours
 notice of the impending change.

 Petitioner alleges that Claimant's hours were improperly changed and cites, inter alia, Rule 27 (a) which provides for the hours of each shift and specifically limits the start of a second shift to the finishing time of the first shift a relies on Rule 34 which provides;

Carrier stated that the changed hours were agreed to by a Local Chairman and the General Supervisor, but admitted, during the handling on the property, that the changes had been made improperly. Carrier asserted that this wan a temporary change in hours and was properlyy filled without bulletining.

 We have considered a similar dispute involving the saws parties, in Award 16091, which also was concerned with a track laying operation, and that Award is controlling. In that decision we said that Claimant:

There have been a host of other awards over the years which have con
 sistently held that it was improper to require an employe to suspend
 work during his regular hours to absorb overtime. For all the foregoing
 reasons the Claim will be sustained and Claimant will be compensated
 consistently with our holding in Award 16 091.
                    Docket Number SG-21209


        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 Employee 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 Agreeant was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Part 1 is denied; Part 2 is sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          1'r Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1976.