(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties hereto, when and because on July 12, 1974, it required or permitted Supervisory Agent J. H. Henderson at Ahoskie, N. C. to copy train orders for Work Extra 720 of July 14, .1974, and place them in a bill box to be picked up by a crew member of Work Extra 720 on July 14, 1974.

 2. Carrier shall be required to compensate J. H. Henderson for a call, 2 hours at one and one-half times the hourly rate of his assignment on July 14, 1974, for the above violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant herein was the regularly assigned Supervisory
 Agent at Ahoskie, North Carolina on the day in question,
 with a Monday through Friday regular week (Saturday and Sunday as rest
 days). On Friday, July 12, 1974, the Chief Dispatcher told Claimant that
 it would be necessary to issue orders for a Work Extra for the early
 morning of Sunday, July 14th. Claimant advised the Chief Dispatcher that
 he would not be available to make such a call; he was instructed to copy
 Train Order 531 and place that order and other earlier orders together
 with the Clearance Card in a bill box outside of the station to be
 picked up by the train crew on July 14th. On July 14 the clerk on duty
 called Claimant and asked him to take the call, which he refused to do
 again. The orders were picked up by the crew on the Sunday in question.
 Subsequently this claim was filed requesting a two-hour ,:all for Claimant.





              "operator will be paid for the call. At - offices where two or more shifts are worked, the operator whose tour of duty is nearest the time such orders were handled will be entitled to the call."


This is one of a long series of disputes involving the question of whether or not personal delivery of a train order is a requisite for- a call under train order rules. The parties argued vigorously on that issue during the handling of this dispute, citing many previous awards dealing with that problem. However, this case must be dealt with on a much more fundamental basis: the availability of Claimant. That problem precedes the more complex question of the method of handling train orders.

 The evidence herein is unequivocal that Claimant told the Chief Dispatcher on Friday that he would not be available for a call on Sunday. This was affirmed by the second, unnecessary, call to him on Sunday by the clerk on duty. Thus his unavailability for the work in question is clear.

 It is long and well established that a Carrier may not be penalized by a call payment when the employe on whose behalf the Claim is made is not available. For example, in Award 13937:, this Board held:

            "The record before us compels the conclusion that Claimant Brown could not be promptly located, and was not available when the train order was handled by a train service employe. Therefore, his claim mast fail."


We held similarly in Award 11498 involving these same parties. In this dispute, without considering the issue of the personal delivery of the train orders, the Claimant was simply not available for the call and hence it is not necessary to deal with any other issue. It is an essential ingredient that an employe be available for service in order to prevail in a monetary claim in which he alleges that he was not afforded the opportunity to perform such service. The claim, therefore, must fail.

        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;
                      Award Number 21680 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-21537


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:

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1977.