i
 i
 i

_ I

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 Award Number 22038
 THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL--94a


                (Southern Pacific Transportation Company

                ( (Pacific Lines)


    STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

    (GL-8296)


(a) That Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the current Clerks' Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate employe L. G. Ludden at the time and one-half rate of his regularly assigned position No. 1, Agent Telegrapher-Clerk Suisun-Fairfield, for rest day service performed on lower rated Position No. 12 at Lombard; and,

 (b) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be recuired to allow Mr. L. G. Ludden additional compensation based on the difference between the rate of his regular assigned position and the position on which he rendered rest-day service.

    OPINICN.OF 30APD: The,essential poirts in this case are:


Claimant was called in order of seniority to work a vacant position on his normal rest day at Lombard. He was paid on an overtime rate at one and one-half times the rate for this position, i.e., $41.35 daily, which he contends must be the applicable remunerative base. Claimant
    argues that Rule 7 among others cited is dispositive of this dispute since j

    it explicitly provides that employees in such circumstances will be compere

    sated at the higher rate.


The carrier contends that claimant was properly paid under Rule 7 which has been in existence as an agreement provision since February 1, 1922, the effective date of the parties' first working agreement; that a dispute arose in 1930 as to the proper interpretation of Rule 7 when the organization filed claim involving circumstances identical to those here present, which was disposed of by Decision No. 6 of a special board on the property sustaining carrier's position; and that in 1944 petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to overturn Decision No. 6, resulting in Award 2679.

    This Board has carefUl.l.y reviewed all pertinent arguments germane to this case. We have consistently held that while recognizing the precedential force of rules that

                                                      CAward Number 22038?age 2

                    Docket Number CL-2194.3


not attempt to rewrite collective agreements where contract rules or long term understandings are distinguishably articulated and observed.

 We certainly recognize that Decision No. 6 is out of harmony with prevailing practice. But it is the law regarding the parties' specific relationship on this property. Conversely, mindful of the reality of decisional law fact distinctions, we believe that the construction given by this Division's Award 2679 respecting the implicit contents of successor contracts is apropos the bona fides of this claim. Quoting in part from this case, we stated "we think the rule is that where a portion of a written contract is carried forrward verbatim into a new contract all interpretations of the old agreement are carried forward i contrary." We find nothing in the record to support a different conclusion.

 Accordingly having thus found that Decision No. 6 is controlling, we must, of necessity, affirm that this decision is directly relevant to this property only and must not disturb or contravene the generally accepted application of other like ru this construction, they must do so through --he collective bargaining process.

          r^I'DI_NGS: 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 ployes 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'jurisdi'ft<~ron,~,

over the dispute involved herein; and /
          i` ·li~.i (...~.' iJ~"JI

          The Agreement was not violated. \\\


          Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST.~Lz%~L~G~
 Executive Secretary

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

                                                            i