(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond ( and John H. McArthur, Trustees of the ( property of Penn Central Transportation ( Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement dated February 1, 1968 and particularly the Extra Board Agreement #31 and others in effect between the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes and itself, when it failed to call Mr. A. Powell, who is an Extra Board employe, for Extra Work, which was performed by Ms. J. Bennett on June 13 and 20, 1972, located in the Crew Dispatcher's Office, 59th Street Yard Office, Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Bennett performed 4 hours clerical work on July 13, 1972 from 7:59 A.M. to 11:59 A. M. and 5 hours clerical work on July 20, 1972 from 5:59 A.M. to 12:59 P.M. Mr. Powell was qualified and available for such Extra Work.

 (b) That Mr. Powell be compensated with eight (8) hours pay at the proper rate of pay for July 13 and 20, 1972, account of violation of the Rules Agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, who was an Extra Board Employe, was qualified
 and available for the work in dispute on the two dates
 in question. Employe Bennett, who worked the overtime, was a protected
 employe whose protected rate comprehended performance of 188 hours of
 service a month. The record indicates that Carrier requested Bennett to
 work the overtime on the days in question in order to get the required
 amount of time in for the month. The work she performed was directly
 related to her regular duties.

 Petitioner relies on the provisions of Extra Board Agreement #31, which provides:



                                                          I


This Extra Board agreement was agreed to pursuant to Rule 5-C-1 of the applicable Agreement. Petitioner asserts that the protective agreement does not give Carrier the right to ignore the rights of other employes covered by the Agreement as a means of working the protected employe the
 requisite guaranteed hours per month. The Organization argues that the.
 protected employe may obtain protected benefits only to the extent that
 their seniority will entitle them to do so. It is contended that the
 Carrier's interpretation of the rules would obviate the rights of all
 other employes in favor of those who had been adversely affected by a
 merger or consolidation.

 Carrier asserts that it has the right to use Bennett for the number of hours, in this case 188, that generated the protected rate. This was not disputed by Petitioner. Carrier argues that the extra list only protects that work which is not covered by other assignments which are made pursuant to schedule rules. As a further point, Carrier relies on the provisions of Rule 9-A-2:

        "RM 9-A-2 -- MERGER PROTECTIVE AGREEMENT


        (a) The Merger Protective Agreement dated May 20, 1964, as amended, is reproduced in Attachment I hereto and is made a part of this Agreement. The Implementing Agreement dated October 18, 1966 to the Merger Protective Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment II and made a part of this .Agreement.


        (b) In cases where the application of any rule of this Agreement is in conflict with either Attachment I or II, the appropriate provision of Attachment I or II, as the case may be, shall be applicable and supersede such rule."


Protected employe Bennett's regular assignment consisted of forty straight time hours per week, or an average of 174 hours per month. Under the Merger Protective Agreement Carrier was entitled to work Bennett for an additional 14 hours each month, if there was work available to be performed. This right, of course, entailed overtime work which could probably be claimed in most instances by employer on the Extra Board. Petitioner is quite right in asserting that Carrier's actions in this case adversely affects the rights of all other employes in favor of those (in this case Bennett) who were protected employes under the Merger Protective Agreement. This confl drafters of the agreements in the language provided in Rule 9-A-2 which- _ .._ ___ clearly sets forth the pre-eminence of the Merger Protective Benefits. Under the circumstances, we must conclude that the use.of Bennett on the dates in question was correct and no proper basis exists for the Claim. y,.
                      Award Number 21378 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-27241


        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.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: dal, P "Z4422
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 1977.