(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company

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

 (a) The Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier").. violated its Train Dispatchers schedule working conditions agreement., including Articles 3(a) and (b), and 4(b) thereof., whens beginning approximately July 1s 1968 it failed to appropriately compensate several train dispatchers at the rate of time and one-half for services performed on their weekly rest days in the instance of regularly assigned train dispatchers, and sixth and/or seventh consecutive days of train dispatcher service in the instance of extra train dis
(b) Because of said violation.. the carrier aha11 nor compensate the individual train dispatcher claimantss referred to in paragraph (a) above the difference between time and one-half the daily rate of compensation applicable to the train disp allowed them for such train dispatcher services beginning approximately July 1p 1968 and continuing until such time as proper time and one-half compensation is being paid on a current basis.

 (c) The identity of the individual claimants and their involved claim dates shall be determined by a ,joint check of the carrier's records.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The agreement between the parties provides that the employes
 are entitled to time and one-half payment for service per
 formed on rest days and in certain other instances.



and Article 4(b) states that the daily rate of pay ~k:a-.1 be determined
 ·;y mi·ltiplying the regular monthly rate by 12 and dividing the result by 261.

 In March of 1979, the employes advised that they were being paid for rest day service at time and one-half the hourly rates rather than time and one-half the daily rate.


Although the Organization asserts that the Manager of Personnel advised that said payroll practice would be altered, nonetheless the Carrier failed to do so, and it continued to compensate the employes in the objectionable manner, which prom
When the matter was brought to the attention of the Manager of Personnel on March 22, 1979, he issued a reply four days later, in which he stated:

        "I am unable to determine just when or on what occasions the instructions contained ...have not been followed, however, we are re-issuing instructions to insure that Train Dispatchers used for service on rest days are compensated at one and one-half times the daily rate instead of the punitive hourly rate basis."


The Carrier subsequently responded to the claim that it was "too vague and indefinite" to constitute a proper claim, and that there was no agreement support. In a la as well as the assertion that the claim was too vague and indefinite and was without agreement support.

 As we have reviewed this claim, it suits a request for reimbursement which encompasses a period
The Board has difficulty with the Organization's contentions in this claim. Without immediate regard to the doctrines of laches, Railway labor Act requirements of reasonable diligence in progression of claims, and related matters, it appears to us that when a group of employes accepts the method of computing certain payments for an 11 year period, there is an acquiescence in such practice, and in order to ignore that indication of the manner in which the parties have applied certain obligations we would require a much stronger shoving of an obvious violation than we have before us. We will dismiss the Claim for lack
        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 FSnployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and BSnployes 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
                    Award Number 23470 Page 3

                    Docket Number TD-23389


        That the Claim be dismissed.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of December 1981.