(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

1. The Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it called P. Malis on one of his assigned rest days on February 1 and February 21, 1976, to fill temporary vacancies on positions with a lesser rate of pay than his own and failed to properly compensate him for eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of his regularly assigned position.

 2. The Carrier shall compensate Clerk P. Malis for the difference between eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one=half rate of Position No. GT-1174R, his regular assignment and Position No. GT-121, the assignment he filled for February 1, 1976.

 3. The Carrier shall also compensate Clerk P. Malis for the difference between eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half of Position No. GT-1174R and Position No. GT-434 for February 21, 1976.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On February 1, 1976, the Claimant, Clerk P. Malis,
 was called on one of his assigned rest days to
 fill a temporary vacancy on Position GT-121. GT-121 has a daily rate of
 pay of $+7.2146. On February 21, 1976 Mr. Malis was called on one of
 his rest days to fill a temporary vacancy on Position GT-434. GT-434
 has a daily rate of pay of $47.2119. For his service on these dates,
 Mr. Malis was compensated at the time and one-half rate of the position
 to which he was assigned. The Organization contends that under Rule 53
 of the Agreement, the Claimant should have been compensated at the time
 and one-half rate of his regular assignment, GT-1174R, which has a daily
 rate of pay of $55.7737.

 By letter dated September 16, 1942 the then General Chairman agreed to an interpretation of the Agreement concerning the rate of pay


due an employe in the overtime situation where a Roundhouse Clerk doubled aver as an Engine Crew Caller, and was paid at the Caller's rate rather than his Clerk's rate, which was considerably higher. Initially the Organization had argued that Rule 53 was not complied with. Thereafter, however, the General Chairman in the September 16, 1942 letter agreed as follows:

            "We agree that an employe is entitled to receive the punitive rate of the osition occupied on such second tour of duty." emphasis added)


        On August of 1949 a succeeding General Chairman recognized

that emergency overtime performed by other than the regular incumbent
 would be worked at the rate of the position, and without regard to the
 regular rate of pay of the particular employe to whom the overtime was
 assigned. The Carrier asserted on the property and before the BoaYd
 that the practice and the application of the 1942 Settlement for over
 34 years in duration was that overtime performed by other than the
 regular incumbent would be worked at the rate of the position, with
 out regard to the regular rate of pay of the particular-employe per=
 forming the--work. Th6-Carrfeiaasserts £hat the- have consistently
 applied the interpretation on a uniform basis for over 34 years. These
 assertions have never been denied.

 We are most impressed by the logic of the Awards involving other railroad properties cited to us by the Organization. However, these Awards are inapplicable to this particular railroad, in view of the 1942 Settlement and the 34 years of paying for overtime worked by other than the regular incumbent of the position at the punitive rate of the position worked, without regard to the regular rate of paay of the employe performing the overtime on rest days or during a second tour in twenty-four hours.
The Organization contends that one of the purposes of the claim is to right that palpable wrong committed by the former General Chairman 35 years ago. The appropriate method for modifying the Agreement of the parties is set forth in Rule 70 of the Agreement.

        We shall deny this claim.


        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;

                  Award Number 22042 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-22101


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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATICKAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


                      w


ATTEST: . '~l~ fiLC`
 Executive Secretary

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

r~tt `~ ~~`

r;~.aY 2 2 1~7
 `~ `!. P-ER'~ P,/~