(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Texas and Pacific Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on The Tema and Pacific Railway
 Company:

On behalf of Signal Maintainer J. D. Shires for 13.9 hours at the time and one-half rate for work performed outside of his normal working hours clearing trouble on communication lines between Allen and Henryetta, Oklahoma, on the KO&G Subdivision: February 1, 1974, 4.5 hours; February 6, 1974, 3 hours; February 15, 1974, 3. hours; February 27, 1974, 2.7 hours. ffarrier's file: G 315-92-

On behalf of Signal Maintainer J. D. Shires for five hours at the punitive rate from 8:30 p.m. Friday, June 21, 1974, to 1:30 a.m. Saturday, June 22, 1974, and 2.7 hours at the punitive rate from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 1974, account clearing trouble on communication lines between Henryetta and Durant, Oklahoma. arrier file: G 225-66)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The chronology of the two Agreements and their relevant
 provisions is significant in this dispute. On Janu
 p?y 22, 1968, effective February 1, 1968, an Agreement was entered into by
 Petitioner, Carrier and the Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company prin
 cipally as follows:



                    Docket Number SG-21119


        "Pacific signalmen's seniority roster, will have prior righta~to regular bulletined positions in the territory as described herein, will, work and be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement between the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, which will include such line and communications work in said territory as may be required


        This Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, shall remain in effect until amended or cancelled pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended."


On August 22, 1968, effective September 1, 1968, due to the acquisition of certain additional communication pole lines from Western Union, Carrier and Petitioner entered into an understanding which amended the basic Agreement between the parties in two respects: it expanded the Scope Rule to include "construction and maintenance of communications pole lines, wires and appurtenances"; it also provid
        "Monthly rated employes required to perform work on communications pole lines, wires and appurtenanc regularly assigned hours and on the sixth (6th) day of the work week and on holidays will be compensated therefore in accordance with rules applicable to hourly rated employee, in addition to their regular monthly rate."


The record indicates that Claimant was a monthly rated employe who had customarily worked on communication pole lines and had done so outside of his regularly assigned hours as indicated in the Claim. It is undisputed that Claimant's assignment prior to September 1, 1968 had included ". such line and communications work in said territory as may be required." The record also contains information about certain contested payments to Claimant which Carrier alleges to have occurred through misapplication of the September 1, 1968 Agreement.

 The principal position of Carrier is that the February 1, 1968 Agreement is a special agreement that was not amended or cancelled by the September 1, 1968 Agreement. Carrier asserts that this Board has no right to amend the February 1, 1968 Agreemext by applying the later Agreement to &O&G territory. Further Carrier argues that the monthly rate covers all communications maintenance work performed by Claimant and he is not entitled to additional overtime erroneous prior payments are not controlling (and we agree).

 We cannot agree with Carrier's statement that the special agreement applicable to Claimant's positio provisions amending the Missouri Pacific Signalmen's Agreement, even though
                    Award Humber 21265 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21119


it had no direct application on the territory to which Claimant was assigned. An examination of the first Agreement, dated January 22, 1968 indicates unequivocally that-Claimant basic Agreement. It is apparent that amendments to the basic Agreement relating to other matters, in applied to Claimant, and it is impossible to discern any exceptions agreed to by the parties applicable to Claimant or his position. We can understand Carrier's position in that the August 22, 1968 Agreement was triggered by the Western Union work, which did not affect Claima ; however, the language of the rate change (supra) negotiated in that Agreement provides for no exceptions. This Hoard has no authority to write amendments or change any rules negotiated by the parties, and in this instance, Carrier would have us do so since there was an omission. We cannot, and hence the Claim must be sustained.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          BATIORAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 'W' &~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1976.