PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CIAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to properly compensate the members of Gang 304 for time worked following their regular assigned work period on February 26, 1979 (System File B-1505/D-9895).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Foreman V. L. Kinder be allowed two (2) hours of pay (4 :C0 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) at his time and onehalf rate and six and one-half (6-1/2) hours of pay (1 at his half time rate and Messrs. G. H. Leutzinger, M. Kozma, J. E. DeRousse and T. R. Fallert each be allowed two (2) hours of pay (4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) at their respective time and one-half rates, eight and one-half (8-1/2) hours of pay (11:30 P.M. to 7:30 A.M.) at their respective half time rates and two and one-half (2-1/2) hours of pay (7:30 A.M. to 10:00 A.M.) at their respective straight time rates."

 OPLN'ION OF BOARD: The issue raised in this matter is whether Claimants are
 entitled to be paid for two hours. This is the period at the end of the normal work day which was 4:00 P.M. until 6:00 P.M. when they reported back to vrork for the purpose of snow removal work. The Claimants were informed before normal quitting time of the arrangement and were told to report back to work at 6:00 P.M. packed for up to two days away from home.

 Claimants were not paid for the period from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P. M., and they are, therefore, claiming payment for this time as well as increase in their other payments which would'have been increased had they received payment for the two hours in question, because this would have then made their employment continuous from the time that they first started the initial work day.

 The question at issue then is whether the Carrier car. call the Claimants back to work after a two-hour gap without their being paid for it and, more particularly in this circumstance, where they were instructed to go home and pack in order to be prepared for a two-day stay away from home.

 There is no allegation on the part of the Claimants that this procedure was a device calculated to defeat the purpose of the specific language of the Agreement, but rather that a proper interpretation of the Agreement would allow their being paid for this time, that technically they were still on duty because of their instructions to pack for the subsequent trip.

 There is a procedural matter raised by the Carrier because the claim was made over sixty days after the date of the service in question; however, this Board is of the opinion there is no basis for a procedural defect in that the
                        Docket Number MW-23757


controlling date of the basis for their grievance is the date upon which they were notified that they would not be paid for the time in question, not the work days involved.

 The language of the Agreement does not require that employes called to perform overtime work must be so called immediately after the end of their straight time or normal work period. The most significant question is whether the request of the supervisor to the employes to get packed for a two-day trip is, in itself, sufficient to consider this period as being in the employ of the Carrier.

 A review of the Awards provided by the Organization does not reveal any which are exactly in point. The closest. ones are decided on the basis of a standby service waiting for a further call. Even these Awards involve a restriction of the movements of the employe even if he is idle. See Award 21885 which cites Award 3955 therein.

 Since the Claimants herein were in no way confined in their activities during the two-hour period, we do not find the Awards applicable. The Claimants were free to go home and pack or not as they chose. If they chose not to go home, they were not subject to discipline. The time appears to have been made available as a convenience to the Claimants.

        For the reasons cited herein, the claims will be denied.


        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 Employes involved in 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 Boasd has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUMf:NT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board

                        Award Number 24239 Page 3

                        Docket Number MW-23757


BY
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinoiss this 14th day of March 1983.