(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

(a) The Burlington Northern Inc. (herein after referred to as "the Carrier`),violated Article 3(b) of the currently effective Agreement between the Carrier and th when on May 27, 1974 it declined the punitive rate timeslip presented by Dispatcher W. E. LaMon for one (1) hour to attend investigation as a Carrier witness on May 23, 1974 at Vancouver, Washington.

 (b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant W. E. LaMon the difference between one (1) hour's pay at time and one-half rate and the one (1) hour pay at straight time rate which was allowed.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Train Dispatcher W. A. LaMon was regularly
 assigned in Carrier's Vancouver, Washington train
 dispatching office with weekly assigned rest days of Thursdays and
 Fridays. Superintendent notified claimant to appear as witness at an
 inve§tigation t~Se-ld at 10:00 A.M. Thursday, May 23, 1974. Claimant
 attended the investigation as requested which lasted from 10:00 - 11;00
 A.M. on May 23, 1974, his rest day. His time slip for one (1) hour's
 compensation at the overtime rate for rest day service was declined by
 the Chief Dispatcher on May 27, 1974 because it was "not substantiated
 by schedule rules. Claim will be paid at the straight time rate."

 The Organization argues that pursuant to Article 3b, entitled Service on Rest Days, the claimant is entitled to the time and one half rate. 3b: "A regularly assigned train dispatcher required to perform service on the rest days assigned to his position will be paid at the rate of time and one half for service performed on either or both rest days."
                    Docket Number TD-21568


The Carrier cites Article 20 which directly relates to attending court or an inquest or other business on behalf of the company during their regularly assigned work day shall be paid at the regular rate - the daily rate of their assignment. If this should occur on their rest day, the provisions of Article 3b would apply-

 This Board finds that the claimant was performing service within the meaning of Article 3b when he attended the investigation on May 23, 1974. On that basis the claim is sustained. (See also: Third Division Awards 21536, 18434, 17316, 17164, 16778, 15729, 14124, 10062, 3966, 2032.)

        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 violated.


                      A W A R D

Claim sustained.
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 ATTEST: aAl &446114 By Order of Third Division

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of July 1977.

                                ~ ~ ,~ JCEI.vEo

                                24 W7


                                  J BER~ P