NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJW24ENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 George S. Roukis, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 (Texas & Louisiana Lines).

 Award Number 23058
 Docket Number SG-23003

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

 (Southern Pacific Transportation Comnany ( (Texas and Louisiana Lines)

 "Claim of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 On behalf of monthly rated Signal Maintainer M. R. Robinson for eight hours' straight time pay that was deducted from his timeroll for July 29, 1978, in violation of the Memorandum of Agreement dated June 7, 1972."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts in this case are undisputed.
 Claimant who is a monthly rated signal maintainer headquartered at Tower 26 in Houston, Texas, was called on July 29, 1978 between 10:30 AM and 11:00 AM to perform service but was not at home at the time of the call.

 Carrier deducted eight (8) hours from his time roll at the straight time rate for failure to protect his assignment in accordance with Rule 601. It contends that he should have made himself available for this assignment in order to qualify for the entire monthly rate and that the June 7, 1972 Memorandum of Agreement, which Claimant cited was supportive of his point, was applicable since it only applied to overtime after the 213 hour monthly requirement was worked.

 Claimant, contrawise, disputes this contention and asserts that the only agreement basis for a pay deduction is this memorandum, He contends that Carrier's argument that Article III of the December 4, 1970 Memorandum of Agreement clarifies and defines Rule 601 is new argument and thus procedurally defective since it was not considered or discussed on the property.

 In our review of this case, we agree with bier that Rule 601 sets forth the methods and basis for determining monthly rates but ~we must reject its correlative and belated assertionsjthat Article III of the December 4, 1970 MC`:Jraadum of Agreement is dispositive since it was for


the first time noted in Carrier's ex parte submission, contrary to the explicit requirements of Circular 1-D(hrrier was obligated to demonstrate on the property the interpretative relationship between Rule 601(c) and Article III of the aforementioned Memorandum rather than develop this line of reasoning at the Bond level. Admittedly, paragraph 2 of page 2 of the June 7, 1972 Memorandum relates to service outside of regular assigned hours but Carrier was additionally required to show that notwith to work during his regular assignment as per Rule 601 he did not work 213 hours. Paragraph 3 of the June 7, 1972 Memorandum imposes a compensatory deduction where the employe is unavailable for service when called. But it cannot be exacted unless the employe has worked this time. By law, we can only consider those facts and arguments that were articulated consistent with our due process procedure It has not been established that Claimant worked 213 hours and under the aforementioned provision and the facts of record, we have no alternative option other than to sustain the 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;


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.

                                            C r, ~71 VV

                                            '~


                  L W __AR


        Claim susttined.


                              NATIONAL RALILR~OAEU6('. TT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        EScecutiveSecretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1980.