(Julian C. Meyer PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"This submission is requested because the E J & E failed to compensate me for overtime services rendered on August 5, 1983, from six P. M. until ten P. M."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, a Signal Foreman, protests the failure to
 compensate him by additional salary payment when called
 for service from 6 P. M. to 10 P. M. on August 5, 1983. The Claimant was called
 from the Alternate Call List solely to repair a Gate Arm at a public highway
 crossing. The Board concurs with the Carriers judgment that such work
 constituted "emergency" duty requiring immediate attention.
Claimant is paid under Rule 14, which states in pertinent part as follows:


        Rates of Pay of Foremen and Other Monthly Rated Employes


        The monthly rate of monthly rated employes covers all service performed during the calendar month except as provided herein. All monthy rates of pay are based on 213" hours per month . . . .


        Monthly rated employes assigned by the management to perform regular or ordinary service outside of regular assigned hours will be compensated at the overtime rates provided herein for such service.


        On assigned rest day only emergency service may be required of a monthly rated employe. Emergency service as referred to herein is the service necessary to restore to safe-working order that section of the signal for which he is responsible.


        "NOTE: Pursuant to National Agreement Dated January 29, 1975."

                    Award Number 25851 Page 2

                    Docket Number MS-25975


Pursuant to Rule 14, the Carrier states without dispute that the service involved was within the 213 hours of work in the month; the service was not of "regular or ordinary nature, but rather was an emergency; and the monthly rate refers to "a11 service" (within the 213 hours).
The Claimant's submission includes reference to previous payments of overtime, allegedly as precedent for this occurrence. The language of Rule 14 is clear and unambiguous, however, and governs the circumstance here under review.
In view of this, procedural matters raised by the Carrier do not require discussion.
        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 Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        Attest: Nancy J. ~- Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of January 1986.


                                            G


                                                    .j


                                          ~'hica~o c~```

                                        L