PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

_STAT--MENT OF CLAIM: (a) The Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company,
 hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier", violated the
 Agreement in effect between the parties on April 6, 1972, Article 3(b) there
 of is particular, when it failed and refused to properly compensate Claimant
 Train Dispatcher Jack R. Lyons for service performed on an assigned weekly
 rest day.

 (b) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant in the amount of $32.29, which represents the difference between the pro rata rate applicable to the service performed and the time and one-half rate applicable to service performed on a rest day.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are undisputed. The claimant, a regularly
 assigned train dispatcher, was required to perform service
 on one of the assigned rest days of his position--namely, April 6, 1972--in
 relief of a chief train dispatcher. For such service Claimant was paid $65.58,
 which was the (updated) "flat rate, ...per day" specified in a separate agree
 ment dated March 9, 1962 (effective April 1, 1962) between the parties. The
 claim is for the difference between this amount and time and one-half for ser
 vice performed on his rest day, as provided by Article 3 of the Schedule
 Agreement. Carrier denies that the requested time and one-half is due claim
 ant, on the ground that the rate he was paid for relieving a chief dispatcher
 is contained in a special rule which governs in this case. Article 1(a) of
 the Schedule Agreement states that the rules listed therein "shall govern the hours
 of service, compensation and working conditions of train dispatchers. The
 term 'train dispatchers' as used in this agreement shall include all train
 dispatchers, excepting only one chief train dispatcher in each dispatching office."

 We are mindful of a long line of awards which state that both the so-called rest day rule and the separate rule governing payment for train dispatchers who relieve chief dispatchers apply when a train dispatcher relieves a chief dispatcher on a rest day of the train dispatcher. But none of these awards contained the language of the separate agreement which applies to this case. Here,.the parties negotiated agreement language stating that "any employe who relieves the Chief Dispatcher for any reason shall be compensated at a _flat rate o Dispatcher shall be subject to any general adjustment, increase or decrease thereto, granted to dispatchers." (Underlining supplied.) The parties are
                    Docket Number TD-21162


not presumed to have used the word "flat" without intending that it has meaning. The dictionary tells us that when used in the subject context "flat" means "absolute or fixed". Petitioner seeks to read the word "flat" out of this case but we may not do so.

 Thus it is held that the clear and unambiguous language the parties have used forbids the payment of time and one-half under the subject circumstances.

        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: _a Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1977.

                                            7 ,1

                                        ~.. I V~ y,

                                              w


                                        _F'j

                                        J U,.


                                      `~ ~ B ERA P