(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express affil Station Employee
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (asicagos Milwaukee., St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Benseaville, Illinois when it arbitrarily and willfully deducted $40,3912 from the first half of January 1978 sad $121.1736 from the first half of February 1978 payroll checks of Employs R. A. Bleau far a total deduction of $161.5648.

 (2) carrier shall now be required to reimburse the $161.5648 to Employe R. A. Hleau which was deducted from his first half January 1978 and first half February 1978 payroll checks.

 OPINION CF HOARD: The claimant seeks payment for time lost because he was
 on jury duty, under the provisions of the rule which
 provides as follows:

The claimant's walk assignment was from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. the following morning. The jury service began at 9:00 A.M. on each day involved.

 The question at issue is whether the phrase "required to lose time from his assignment" is applicable in this instance since the times of the jury duty were not co-extensive with his walk times.

 The Organization cites Award 3-22358 is support of its position. The factual situation is substantially identical to the instant case. The claim was sustained on the basis that as employs could not be required to work a regular tour of duty and serve on a jury within the same twenty-four hour work day.



In Award 2-6295, the claimant was denied his appeal for time and one-half fair the time he spent working his regular shift, when he worked both his regular shift, frog 11:30 P"M. to 7:30 A.M., because the Carrier would not excuse him, and also performed his jury duty starting at 9:30 A.:I.

 In Award 1-23199, the claimant vas denied compensation because his assignment did not-xork on the day that he performed fury duty service.

 in Award 2-6435, the claim was denied because the claimant could not have performed his normal duties since there was a strike, and it was not alleged that the claimant would cross the picket line.

 Of the last three Awards.. only 2-6295 is of support to the cause of the Carrier as the relief sought, although slightly different, was based upon the concept that the interpretation of the rule should be construed to apply only when th the same time of day.

 Carrier members of this Board Piled a dissent is Award 3-22358, and is the instant matter continue to aver that the decision in Award 3-22358 was an unfounded maverick decision which xrote new provisions into the rules is spite of along-stand not add to existing rules in nay manner.

 In essence, we are asked by the carrier to overrule the principle adopted in Award 3-22358 and return to the interpretation of Award 2-6295 which said the language is "clear and specific°.

 Unfortunately, this Board does not find the language clear and specific.

 The Carrier is, is effect, contending that the phrase, "required to lose time from his assignment as a result thereof", includes the concept "because he can't be performing his assignment and performing Jury duty at the same time". Hut the rule doesn't say that. The carrier's interpretation is logical. and reasorALble, but not necessarily the only one. Such as interpretation may, is itself concept which the (terrier rejects.

 In point of fart, the language is incomplete and ambiguous ani may be reasonably subject by the parties to the interpretation of either Award 3-22358 or Award 2-6295.

 Mindful again that we are not to add to the rules, this does not, however, relieve our responsibility to make an interpretation which will carry out the intention of the bargaining parties as we can best determine or estimate what it
              - Award Number 23926 Page 3.

              Docket Number CL-23268


The Board in Award 3-22358, vas attempting to do dust that. Whether we agree with that Award in all its concepts or not, we cannot say that it vas palpably erroneous on its face, pexticular7y the approval of the specific claim.

 Given the facts in that case, it vas not improper to conclude that the claimant should not be expected to work all night and perform fury duty shortly thereafter. The Carrier members seem to support this result because is their dissent, they indicated at the outset that they did not object to the sustained, conclusion. Also at the end of the dissent, they indicate that if the Referee had. "sustained the claim based upon the 'obvious long hours' which the claimant in this case would have experienced on fury duty and on the fob, there could have been little if any challenge to his interpretation of the agreement".

 The Carrier members do not accept the notion that alloying the claimant to receive the fury pay is a valid interpretation of the rule, but they do not object to recognizing that it is appropriate to alloy the claimant to recover user These circumstances. We do not agree with Carrier is this instance. We believe that it is a permissible interpretation of the rule, in the facts is this case, that the claimant vas "required to lose time" as a result of his fury duty. We don't support the interpretation of the rule which precludes recovery unless the fury duty and the work hours are the same.

 We find that it is a valid interpretation of the rule to authorize the claimant to receive fury duty pay when his work hours are 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., and he is required to report for fury duty shortly thereafter. When he does not work these hours in anticipation of his fury duty which follows shortly thereafter in order that he may be physically and mortally capable of performing this duty, he hen been "required to lose time from his assignment as s result" of the fury duty and the claim will be sustained.

 We find it unnecessary to address any broader application of the rule and confine our decision to the specific facts in this case.

 The claimant should receive fury duty pay for each tour of duty immediately prior to his fury service. On this record claimant is entitled to payment for January 3, 9 and 10, 1978.
        FINDIAG3: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;

Award. Number 23926
 Docloet Number CL-23268

 Page 4

 Tact the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and F>sployes 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; end

 That the Agreement was violated.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24ENT HOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


y
 emarie Breach - Admialstrntive Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 30th day of June 1982.

 C CEIV

 ^r'i
 ~ty,~- ~_

 o Off..,
      ce