(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and
 ( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property
 ( of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CIAI14: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the former Pennsylvania
 Railroad Company:


(a) Carrier is in violation of Art. 5 of the Nov. 16, 1971 Agreement by letter of Supervisor C&S J. J. Canfield to 'All Former P.R.R. Employees' about double time.

 (b) Carrier should be required to pay E. G. Seibert 3.5 hr. double time. After he put in 8.0 hr. straight time on Monday Feb. 11, 1974 he also worked 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm 2.5 hr. and was called again at 10:30 pm till 7:30 am 9.0 hr. a total of 11.5 hr. on his rest time.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts necessary to resolve the issue
 presented are not in dispute: Claimant was an
 hourly rated employe with regularly assigned hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
 Monday through Friday. On Monday, February 11, 1974, Claimant worked his
 regular tour of duty and then commenced working overtime from 4:00 p.m.
 until 6:30 p.m., and then from 10:30 p.m. until 7:30 a.m. the following
 day. For this service Claimant was paid as follows:



This claim is for three and one-half hours at the double time rate, for the time Claimant worked over 16 hours within a 24 hour period, i.e. from 4:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. The claim is based on the provisions of Article V (Overtime Rate of Pay) of the November 16, 1971 National Agreement that provides in pertinent part:


        "(a) Time worked following and continuous with a regularly assigned e3~. ht-hour work period shall be computed on actual minutes basis and paid for at time and one-half rates, with double time computed on actual minute basis after sixteen hours of work in any twentyfour hour period computed from starting ti employee's regular shift..." (Underscoring added).


The Organization contends that there is an entitlement to double time if an employe works after 16 hours in any 24 hour period, and the work does not have to be continuous.

 Carrier takes the position that before Claimant has a right to claim double time he must have worked continuously for 16 hours commencing with the beginning of his regular starting time. It appears that both parties rely on Third Division Award No. 20649. We quote the award in its entirety:

        "OPINION OF BOARD: At the heart of this dispute is

        Article V of the Mediation Agreement of November 16, 1971. The words used in Article V are to be taken in the ordinary and popular sense, unless from the context it appears to have been the intention of the parties that they should be understood in a different sense.


        Article V provides for double time after 16 hours' continuous service in any 24 hour period computed from the starting time of the employe's regular shift. This simply means that in computing double time for work in excess of 16 continuous hours of service, the starting time of an employe's regular shift constitutes the starting point of the 24 hour period.


        The record indicates that Claimant A. F. Booth was deserving of double time pay on August 5, 1972 from 3 A.M. to 12 Noon. His claim will be sustained. Accordingly Claimant H. F. Miller did not fulfill the requirements of a 24 hour period. Therefore his claim is denied."


A review of the record in that dispute reveals that Claimants had assigned regular hours from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. They worked their regular shifts and continued to work up to 11:30 p.m. (or a total of 16 1/2 hours). Claimant Miller answered a call at 8:00 a.m. the following day and worked until noon. Claimant Miller's claim was denied because he
                    Award Number 21874 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21293


did not perform double time service within the 24 hour period. Claimant Booth's claim was sustained because double time service was commenced within the 24 hour period, even though there was a time lapse of three and one half hours (from 11:30 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.) before double time service began.

 While this Board may question the propriety of paying double time for work that went beyond the 24 hour period, we accept the interpretation of Article V as enunciated in Award No. 20649. As such we shall deny the claim because Claimant herein worked continuously for only 11 hours and failed to meet the 16 hour continuous work requirement.

        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

        The Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: &442--,
 Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1978.