Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Enployes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Milwaukee-Kansas City Southern Joint Agency
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 that:
 (1) The Agreement was violated when, on July 5, 1975, an
 employe junior to Gerald E. Bayless was used for overtime service from
 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. (System File 013.31-171).
 (2) Claimant Gerald E. Bayless shall now be allowed eight
 hours of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the aforesaid
 violation.
 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a dispute involving Carrier's alleged
 failure to call Claimant for overtime work on his
 rest day, calling a junior employe instead. The dispute turns on the
 question of whether or not Carrier's effort to notify Claimant to report
 for the work was adequate. There was no contention that an emergency
 situation was involved.
 The foremsa stated that he attempted to call Claimant for the
 work, but could not reach him. There is no indication of when he called Z
 or how many times he attempted to call. On the other hand, Claimant de
 nies receiving any calls and claims he was at home for the entire period
 in question. He also presented a statement from another person who was
 with him that day who verified that he did not receive any calls.
 Carrier takes the position that its efforts were adequate.
 Carrier relies in part on Award 20408, which dismissed a similar claim on
 the basis of a conflict in the evidence which precluded a resolution. It
 is noted, however, that in that dispute there was evidence that Claimant
 had been called several times by Carrier and no response had been received.
 Carrier's efforts to reach Claimant in this instance were simply
 inadequate, according to the record. We have been faced with similar cir
 cumstances on many occasions and have held consistently that in the absence
 of emergency conditions, one attempted telephone call is insufficient (see
 for example Awards 4189, 17533, 20109, 21.222, and many others).


Carrier raises, inter alia, the question of the overtime rate claimed in this dispute. It must be clear that the overtime rate does not constitute a penalty since it was the regular rate of pay for the work on the rest day; the loss of work opportunity on that day mandates consistent reparations f
        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


                                        r n

        Claim sustained. ~ ~ I a ~ 1,,77


                                      J J BER'~


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 941. A44ale'.0
        Executive Secretary


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