NATIONAL RAILROAD AwuSTen BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Rodney E. Dennis, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Award Number 23478
 Docket Number TD-22936

 (American Train Dispatchers Association

 (
 Consolidated Rail Corporation
 (Former Penn Central Transportation Company)

 'System Docket No. CR-7 Central Reaioa -
 Allegheny Div. Case 5-1

D. J. Harpster, Train Dispatcher Altoona Movement Office, Altoona, Pa.,
 is entitled to eight (8) hours pay either pro r:ta or punitive rate
 Train Dispatcher for the following dates when agreement was violated.
 Regulations 4-B-1, 4-C-1, 4-D-1 and 7-B-1 of present agreement with
 American Train Dispatchers Association governing.

 1/26/75 -
 1/28/75 -
 2/ 2/75 -
 2/ 9/75 -
 2/16/75 -

 1/24/75
 1/25/75 -
 !'3)./75 -
 2/ 7/7; -
 2;1w; f5 -
 2/21/7> -

 1/21;75 -
 1/22/75 -
 1/23/75 -
 1/29/''5 -
 1/30/i7 -
 2/ 4/75 -
 2/ 5/75 -
 2/ 6/75 -
 2/11/75 -
 2/12/75 -
 2/13/75 -
 2/18/75 -
 2/19/75 -
 2/20/75 -

 Pro rata rate - aeaigne<

 _ _

 Punitive rate - assigned

 No IN

 _ _
 _ _
 It to
 _, n

 Punitive rate -performed

 n _ _
 n _
 _ _ _
 _ _ _
 _ _ _
 _ _ _
 _ _ _
 " _ n
 _ _ _
 n n n
 _ _ _
 _ _ _
 _ _

 work day - not permitted to work

 _ _ _

 n _
 n n
 of it
 n n

 relief day - performed service
 _ a

 _ _ n

 No 11

 n n

 service off assigned hours

 _ _ _

 n
 , n

 n n n n n
 ,
 _
 to


OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant was regularly assigned as a relief
 train dispatcher on the Section "A" desk in
 carrier's Altoona, Pa., office. His regular work schedule was the
 Sunday and Monday day shift, 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m; Tuesday and
 Wednesday shift, 3:00 P.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and Thursday, the 11:00 p.m.
 to 7:00 a.m. shift. Friday and Saturday were rest days.

 Claimant was assigned by carriei on Janvary20, 1975, to work with a member of the M & W department on the preparation of a gross ton mileage report. This report is used for the M & W department. The project was complete claimant returned to.his relief dispatcher assignment on the following Sunday.

 During the time claimant was assigned to the gross ton mileage report, he worked from 73:00 a.m. to 5:OO.p.m., with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. This work schedule coincided with the schedule worked by R. E. Chambers of the M & W department, who was working with claimant on the project. On march 4, 1975, claimant alleged that carrier had violated his rights under the contract because of the work schedule it gave him during his special assignment from January 20, 1975, to February 20, 1975. Because of this violation, he claimed:





Claimant itemized his claim by days and alleged violations. A total of twenty-five (25) days are included in the claim in one of the three categories of violations mentioned. The claim was denied at every level. After considerable delay, due to extensions requested by both sides, it has been submitted to this board for resolution.

 The Organization makes two basic arguments that require consideration:



      (2) Whether he was assigned the project or he agreed to do it makes no difference. The contract is clear and unambiguous on all points contested. Carrier cannot make a private deal with an employe to transcend the requirements of the agreement. The Organization.is the bargaining agent and has the right to require compliance with the contract at anyy time.


          The organization presented awards in support of its position.


Carrier argues that since the special assignment at issue here is not covered under the agreement, any alleged violation of the agreement is inappropriate and has
It further argues that claimant has performed this same assignment for the last eight or ten years, with no complaint from him or the Organization. It finally argues that if claimant would have voiced an objection when he was asked to work on the gross ton mileage report, he would not have been required to do the job. Claimant performed the work every year for the past eight or ten years with no complaint. He set his own work schedule and his own rest days during the period he was assigned to the project. Claimant should not now be heard to say that a contract violation exists. Carrier should not pay s penalty for an assignment that claimant volunteered to accept.

 The record of this case reveals that claimant accepted the assignmeqt,and,that he requested that his rest days be changed to coincide with the rest days of his The recordAis barren of any probative evidence that claimant or the Organization lodged a complaint about claimant's assignment to the
 . project before-or during the one month he performed his duties. This
 '-;-failure to complain can only be construed by carrier and this Boaxd to mean that the parties involved did not consider the arrangement between carrier and claimant in any way objectionable.

 This Board is mindful of the line of cases that state that individuals cannot make a private deal with a carrier that is violative of the collective bargaining agreement. This Board subscribes to that basic concept as essential to the stability of union-management relations. It has so stated in many decisions in every Division.

 Our decision in the instant case does not ^ontradict that principal. Carrier and claimant have engaged in the same arrangement for a period of eight to ten years. (The record is not precise on this point, but it is agreed that the arrangement has existed for a long period of time.) The Organization cannot now come forward and complain about such an
                  Award Number 23478 Page 4

                  Docket Number TD-22936


arrangement by pressing a claim for penalty pay. The Organization, by its acquiescence to the arrangement over such a long period of time, has signaled the carrier that the arrangement in this particular case would not be queried. To now file a claim to tell Carrier that the arrangement that has existed for the last eight or ten years is no longer acceptable is inappropriate and not acceptable procedure in good faith labor relations.

 If the Organization and/or the Claimant wanted to set carrier straight on this issue, they should have, at the outset of the assignment, made their objections known. Given the long period of time during which the arrangement was accepted by the union, its failure to file a complaint bars them from lodging an objection now.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearinEr,


That the Carrier and the Employes involved is 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
        That the Agreement was not violated. RE C E vin <~''.


                      A W A R D A ~~ 2, J ~9R~


        Claim denied.

                                            °9o Office . 6


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADiUSTMENT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: i a.~.·~-·~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of January 1982.

                                                        l