(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific
 Transportation Company:



(a) the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) has violated the Agreement between the Company and its Employes in the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective October 1, 1973 and particularly Rules 11(a), 13, 16, 17, 23 and 43 which resulted in violation of Rule,72.

 (b) Mr. L. H. Carmichael be compensated for seven (7) hours at the straight time rate of his. position for September 10, 1975, the amount he was deprived of when required to suspend work during his regular assignment to avoid payment of double time for his regular assignment, clearly for the purpose of absorbing overtime.

 Claim No. 2:

(a) the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the agreement between the Carrier and its employes in the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective October 1, 1973 and particularly Rule 29 which resulted in violation of Rule 72.

 (b) Mr. A. L. McCullough be paid the difference between Signalman's rate of pay and that of General CTC Maintenance Technician for seven (7) hours for September 10, 1975.


OPINION OF BOARD: With respect to Claim No. 1 there is no dispute as
 to the facts, or indeed the issue. Carrier has
 stated in its submission: "It is clear, however, that Rule 16
 specifically grants Carrier the right not to retain Claimant Carmichael
 on duty at punitive rate of pay, and i7 -this instance Carrier exercised
 that right in order to avoid payment at the punitive rate for regularly
 assigned hours in this instance". An identical issue was before this
 Board in Award 21913, involving the same parties. In that Award we held
 that, in closely identical circumstances, Carrier did not have the right
 to require Claimants to suspend work during regularly assigned hours
 for the purpose of absorbing overtime. We found that such action was
 in violation of Rule 17. In the instant dispute we must affirm the
 reasoning expressed in Award 21913 and consequently Claim No. 1 must
 be sustained.

 Claim No. 2 deals with the allegation that Claimant in that case was required to fill a higher rated position for a seven hour period, the period is which Claimant in Claim No. 1 was sent home. An examination of the record of this Claim reveals no evidence in support of the contention that he was required to perform the work of the higher rated position on the date in question. This lack of proof coupled with Carrier's recognized right to blank a position compels the conclusion that the Claim is lacking in merit. It is also noted that Claimant in this dispute filed an identical claim in 1968 which the Board denied for the same reasons in Award 18535.

        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 with respect to Claim No. 1 and was not violated in Claim No. 2.
                    Award Number 22030 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-21991

                    A W A R D


        Claim No. 1 is sustained.


        Claim No. 2 is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April 1978.