(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and

                ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station RDSployes


                PARTIES TO DISPUTE.

              .

                (Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company


                STATEMM OF CLUX: Claimm of the System Comittee of the Brotherhood

                d-8255, that:


(1) Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to allay Mr. W. R. Craven to work his regular assignment on August 20, 1975.

 (2) Carrier shall nor be required to cosspensate Mr. Craven eight (8) hones at the pro rata rate for August 20, 1975.

 OPMOR OF HOARD: Claimant was the regular Second Trick Clerk-
 Operator. On the second day of his assigned rest days, he was called by the Carrier to protect the position of Sixth Clerk-Operator due to illness of the regular occupant. This assignment precluded the Claimant from protecting his own assignment because of the Hours of Service Law. Claimant was compensated at the punitive rate for the service perforated on his rest day. This claim is for eight (8) honra'compeasstion for the regular assignment he was unable to protect.

 The Organization cites Rule 18 of the applicable Agreement, which provides as follows:

          "Regular assigned employes will receive one day's pay within each twenty-four hours, according to location occupied or to which entitled, if ready for service and not used, or if required on duty less than the required miri~ number of hours as per location, except on their assigned rest days and the designated holidays. This rule shall not apply in case of reduction of force nor where traffic is interrupted or suspended by conditions not within the control of the Railway Company."


The Carrier asserts that Rule 18 contains the Rrovision that the employs must be "ready for service and not used. The Carrier argues that the Claimant was precluded from being available for his
                  Award Number 22266 page p

                  Docket Number CL-219D5


regular assignment because of the operation of the Hours of Service Law and, therefore, he could not be considered "ready for service" as required by the Agreement.

 The Union counters that it is not the Roars of Service low which made him unavailable, but is, in fact, a direct result of the action of the Carrier.

 The Union asserts that the Carrier maintains a skeleton work force and, therefore, must. rely on working the senior available employe on his rest day.

 In the instant case, the Claimant was called to protect the shift just prior to the expiration of his rest day and, therefore, he could not protect his regular assignment.

 There are awards of this Hoard which hold that the Hours of Service Lint prevails over the provisions of the labor Agreement.

 The Carrier characterizes its position as one of "being in . a boa." It asserts that the Organization would file claims on behalf of the senior available man on his rest. day if he were not called when the extra board was exhausted. On the other hand, if the senior available man was, in fact, called on his rest day and then was unavailable to protect his regplar assignment because of the Hours of Service Law, he would file a claim for missing his regular assist.

 The parties have negotiated a specific guarantee rule. The Carrier elected to assign the Claimant in such a manner as to preclude him from protecting his regular assignment.

 The action of the Carrier was the proximate cause of the Claimant being otherwise unable to comply with the requirements of Hale 18. To permit the Carrier to assign the Claimant in such a manner as to deny him the opportunity to be "ready for service," and then affirm that assignment as a defense to the payment of compensati m, would be unreasonable.

 The Carrier should compensate the Claimant eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate because it caused him to miss his regular assignment.
                    Award Humber 22266 page 3

                  Docket fi=ber C1.-?1905


        FINDIN08: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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;

 mat this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A H A R D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ05TlM HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTRST: 914/. 0L/'Z-'
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of January 1979.