(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the current Clerks' Agreement when it failed and refused to allow Mr. D. J. Pengray fifty-nine (59) minutes compensation at the time and one-half rate of Position No. 48 November 24, 1975; and,

 The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be required to allow Mr. D. J. Pengray fifty-nine (59) minutes compensation at the overtime rate of Position No. 48.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, D. J. Pengray, was regularly assigned
 to Position No. 52, Train Clerk, at Bay Street,
 West Oakland, hours 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., with Saturday and Sunday
 as rest days. On November 24, 1975, the Claimant fulfilled his regular
 assignment 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. On this same date a vacancy existed
 on Position No. 48, Train Clerk, hours 11:59 P.M. to 7:59 A.M. There
 were no qualified guaranteed extra board employes available to fill the
 vacancy, and an attempt to fill the vacancy on a volunteer overtime
 basis was not successful. The Claimant was then called and required to
 fill the overtime vacancy in accordance with Item 3 of Letter Agreement
 dated March 11, 1971. The Claimant was paid eight hours at the over
 time rate of Position No. 48. The claim is the instant case is for
 fifty-nine minutes*overtime for November 24, 1975, which represents
 the period of time between the ending of the Claimant's regular assign
 ment and the starting time of the overtime vacancy.





The Carrier contends in its Submission that its records show that employes working two shifts with an interval of less than one hour between shifts have never been paid for the time between shifts under Rule 21(b). No evidence was introduced at any time to support this assertion, and as such it cannot be considered a valid defense for the Carrier. The Carrier contends that Rule 21(b) would be involved only if an employe were used on a call basis, i.,e., for . further service attached to his own assignment, but not for a call to fill a completely separate vacancy on an overtime basis such as the instant case. We find no such restriction in Rule 21(b) or the entirety of Rule 21 and the March 11, 1971 Letter Agreement. We find that the language of Rule 21(b) is clear and precise. The rule does not qualify the language "who is required to return for further service," sad for this Board to do so would be to add language to the rule which the parties did not choose to do. We shall sustain this claim.

        FILINGS: 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.;'.:-, '-` " u -


                    A W A R D Yiii `


        claim sustained. ~,~! y


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: a4zse-,

        Executive Secretary.


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1978.