Martin F. Scheinman, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Rmployes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company

                  STAMmtT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood 9300) that:


(1) The Missouri-Kansas-Terms Railroad Cempaay violated the current Rules Agreement between the parties, DP-451, including but not limited to Rule 1, Section 7(c) when at 11:29 p.m., July 20, 1979, it allowed, required and/or permitted Engineer Mounce On Train Extra BN 5309 North to copy and hale Train Order No. 117 via radio while his train was standing still at LC,fiA aiding, and then failed and refused to compensate agent-telegrapher Fred Saenz, Jr., a two (2) hour call in accordance with the provisions of current Rule 1.

(2) Carrier shall compensate Mr. Fred Saenz, Jr., Agent-Telegrapher, LaGrange, Texas, a two (2) hour call at the time and one-half rate for July 20, 1979, for train order No. 117 copied at 11:29 p.m.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization claims that Carrier violated the Section 7 (c)
of Rule 1 rhea it permitted and or required a non-covered QM3 YO
to copy train order Ho. 117 at 11:29 p.m. on July 20, 1979 and then refused to em
peneate Claimant, Agent-Telegrapher Fred 9aeaza a two (2) hour call. The Employ" as
sert that Carrier was obligated to pay Claimant a call under the terse of Section 7 (c),

Carrier does not dispute that an employe excepted from the Rules of the Agreement copied the order. However, (terrier argues that no compensation is due Claimant because he had already been paid a call pursuant to Section 7 (c) as a result of a train order being handled at 11:04 p.m. At that time, a non-covered employs copied train order No. 115. In Carrier's view, once a call was paid, Carrier need not pay an two hour period of the call. That is, Carrier asserts that the employs called to handle Order No. 115 could have been able to handle order 117 also.

We disagree with (.terrier's reasoning. Each haling, by a non-covered employs, is a separate and distinct breach of the terms of Section 7 (c). A single payment is insufficient for each breach of the Agreement. See Public Lax Board No. 352, Award No, 79. After a11, if Carrier's position were sustained the rule could be repeatedly breached with immunity as long as the violation occurs within a two hour period. Such an interpretation violates the language of Rule 7 (c). We are persuaded that this was not within the parties' contemplation rhea they agreed to Section 7 ( c). See Award 21033. We rill sustain the claim as pM sented.
            Award Number 23922 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-23796


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record and all the evidences 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 Acts 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.


                        p W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AD.TUS'p·M BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


BY
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
i-
Dated at Chicago Illinois this 30th day of June 1982·

                                        .I V E D

                                        CC

                                              I V E D

                                                    .


                                                ~co


                                      . ~~ ,_

                                                    <, ,


                                        Chi .G

                                                  .,i


                                        <,_ ` co9o Office