(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Fart Worth and Denver Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the Agreement is effect between the parties, Memorandum of Agreement signed October 3 1968 thereof in particular, by failing to compensate K. A. Preston eight (8j hours at straight time rate of first clerk operator September 10, 1977.

 (b) furrier shall now be required to compensate claimant K. A. Preston for wage lose in accordance with the agreement provisions.

 OPINION (&' BOARD: Claimant held a regular assignment as First Operator Clerk
 at North Yard with assigned hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. On September 9, 1977, Claimant exercised his seniority as an extra train dispatcher and worked as such between the hours o wen released from his position as extra train dispatcher at the completion of his shift on September 9, 1977, and would normally have returned to protect his regular assignment at 8:00 a.m. on September 10, 1977, but was prohibited from doing so due to the Hours of Service Law.

 It is the position of the Organization that under Rule 6(B) of the Agreement between the parties, the Claimant wen entitled to be compensated for service on September 10, 1977, at the rate of First Clerk Operator for 8 hours. Rule 6(B) reads as follows:

        "Loss of time on account of the Hours of Service Law or in changing positions by direction of proper authority shall be paid for at the rate of the position for xhM service was performed immediately prior to such change. This does net apply in cases of transfers account employees exercising seniority."


The Carrier takes the position that in that the Hours of Service Act was applicable, the Claimant was unavailable for service, and hence could not properly claim the compensation requested.

 We have considered a case virtually identical to the instant one is the matter resolved is our Award No. 20687. As in that case, we believe that the Rule is applicable and that the Claimant is entitled to be compensated.
                    Award Number 23393 Page 2

                    Docket NumTigT - TP =:4i86k


FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adaustment Board, upon the whole
 record. and all the evidence,'$iniis-and hqa. s:'--
                                          -


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the kiagloyge J.n~o~,vefi in thiR #9 to
 are respectively Carrier and Fiup.1oyes a q m~niiigJ ~J~1i ~.xa
 Labor Act, as approved dune 27., ~ 193; -~'.'-..~ ~!_ _.. _., g_ ~ ~_ ,.:3 G

 That this Division of tag Ad~ustme0 $oX b~6 j~.8~ctloa q74er the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agrgempnt was vi?"

                            ~.


                      A W ~ R &


        Claim sustained.


ATTEST: -
                i - ~.. - ... a..-

                    .,


        Executive


Dated at Chicago, Flli.ao3p, this 6th day of 9q
 g~,'~ ~~..

                                          C E


                                      DPC

                                  6


                                    , 90 Offic - '301t~ C) Office 3

                                    4, 0~3