John E. Cloney, Referee


              (American Train Dispatchers Association


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Seaboard System Railroad


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
              "CLAIM #1 - CARRIER FILE 10-7(83-6) 13


Claim of C. E. Mattox under Article VII(d)(3) for time lost fran regular assignment in other ser perform service as extra train dispatcher.

              CLAIM #2 - CARRIER FILE 10-7(83-9) 13 and C2


Claim of G. W. Deascn under Article VII(d)(3) for time lost from regular assignment in other service on December 11-12, and December 17-18, 1982 to perform service as extra train dispatcher.

              CLAIM #3 - CARRIER FILE 10-7(83-24) C2


Claim of C. E. Mattox under Article VII(d)(3) for time lost fran regular assignment in other ser extra train dispatcher."

 OPINION OF BOARD: These three Claims are for amounts allegedly due two separ
 ate Claimants who hold regular Clerk positions and who per
 formed service as Extra Train Dispatchers. The dispute grows out of a differ
 ence as to the meaning of the following portions of Article VIII of the Agree
 ment:

          (d) Lass of Time Changing Positions

          (1)

          (2)

          (3) when extra train dispatchers are called

          fran their regular assignments in other service to

          perform service as train dispatcher, they will be

          paid the rate of the position they fill in dis

          patcher service, but if the change from one service

          to the other requires then to lose time account of

          the Hours of Service Law, their canpensation shall

          not be less than it would have been had they

          continued on their regular assignments in such

          other service.

                      Award Number 26215 Page 2

                      Docket Number TD-26203


          Example: A telegrapher holding a regular assignment as such paying $3.00 per hour is called to perform extra service as train dispatcher for one day, but thereby of a necessity loses two days from his regular telegrapher position. He earns, as dispatcher, $33.00; his rate on his regular position from which he lost two days was $24.00 per day. He will be paid $48.00 instead of $33.00. If any travel pay is earned under Article IV(h)(2) the amount earned will be applied toward making up the difference of $33.00 and $48.00."


The facts of the three Claims, though similar, are not identical.

 In Claim Number 1 Mattox, a regular Crew Clerk, with hours of 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M., rest days Tuesday and Wednesday, worked Extra Train Dispatcher service on Friday, until 7:59 A.M. Due to the Hours of Service Law he was required to lose time fran his regular assignment on Sunday, December 5 and Monday, December 6 in order to work 3:59 P.M. to 11:59 P.M. as a Train Dispatcher on December 6.

 After the Train Dispatcher assignment on December 6 he observed his regular Tuesday and hkdnesday rest days. He returned as Train Dispatcher on Thursday, December 9 fran 11:59 P.M. to 7:59 A.M. He was again required to lose time from his regular assignment on Friday, December 10 and Saturday, December 11 to work as a Train Dispatcher on Saturday, December 11. On Sunday, December 12 and Monda
Claimant's rate of pay in his regular assignment was $94.17 daily, while his daily rate as a Dispatcher was $124.49.

 The organization argues Mattox lost time from his regular assignment on Sunday, December 5 and on Monday, December 6 in order to work the Train Dispatcher shift from 3:5 days' pay totaling $188.34 in order to earn one day's pay of $124.49 and is therefore entitled to $63.85 canpensation. The same is true of December 10 and December 11, entitling him to another $63.85 for a total of $127.70. Carrier points out that dur $847.53 as a Clerk but earned $871.43 as a Dispatcher and concludes nothing is due.

 Claim Number 3 also involves Mattox. He worked his regular assignment on Thursday, January 27. on Fr his regular assignment on Saturday, January 29 and Sunday, January 30 in order to work from 7:59 A.M. to 3:59 P.M. as a Train Dispatcher on Sunday, January 30. On Monday, January 31 he worked as Train Dispatcher. on February 1 and 2 (his rest days) he worked as a Train Dispatcher as well as on February 3, 4 an 5 returning to his regular assignment on February 6. Thus the organization argues Mattox lost time on January 29 and 30 in order to work as a Train Dispatcher on Januar $96.89 he lost $193.78 to earn one day's pay of $128.10 for a loss of $65.68.
                      Award Number 26215 Page 3

                      Docket Number TD-26203


Carrier again contends Mattox was paid more in the aggregate during the period than he would otherwise have earned and is entitled to nothing.

 Claim Number 2 involved Towerman Deason who regularly worked 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. with Monday and Tuesday rest days. He was required to lose time on December 11 and December 12 in order to work 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P. M. December 12 as a Train Dispatcher. December 13 and December 14 were rest days and on December 15 and December 16 he worked his regular assignment. He was again required to lose time as Tbwerman on December 17 and December 18 in order to work as Train Dispatcher from 11:00 P.M. on December 17 until 7:00 A.M. on December 18.

 Deason's rate was $99.07 per day. He received $124.49 per day as a Train Dispatcher. Thus, argues the Organization he lost two days at $99.07 on December 11 and 12 and again on December 17 and 18 in order to earn $124.49 on December 12 and December 17. Again Carrier maintains Deason earned more in the period than he would have had he worked his regular assignment only. The organization argues the Hours of Service Law deals with 24 hour periods and therefore Article VII(d)(3) references to loss of time also refers to a 24 hour period and not to an aggregate period.

 The question arose on this property at least once before. In Third Division Award 18270 Carrier claimed a Telegraph Operator who was required by the Hours of Service Law to lay off on November 18 to work as a Train Dispatcher on November 19 was during the period November 1 to 26 than he would have if he had not worked as a Train Dispatcher. This Hoard held:

          "In the opinion of the Board, the Carrier misconstrues the rule. The example set out under the rule indicates that it was the intent to insure the employe against any loss of compensation for each period of time he is removed from his regular assignment in other service to protect extra dispatcher work until such extra dispatcher work has been completed and the employe is returned to his regular assignment in other service. Had any other basis been contemplated, such as weekly or monthly, it would have been an easy matter to have so provided. It is well settled that this Board cannot amend rules through interpretation."


Thus this Board concluded the intent of Rule VIII was to insure employees would suffer no loss w protect extra dispatcher work. We specifically found the protection extends to "loss . . . for each period of time" removed fran regular service.
                      Award Number 26215 Page 4

                      Docket Number TD-26203


In Claim Number 1 Mattox worked as a Train Dispatcher from December 3 to December 13 and did not perform his clerical assignment in the interim. During that period he earned more than he otherwise would have. As he suffered no loss during the pe
Again in Claim Number 3 Mattox's Train Dispatcher assignment was one continuous period interrupted only by rest days or time off mandated by the Hours of Service Law. In this uninterrupted period he earned more than he would have in his regular assignment and is entitled to no further ccmpensation.

 In Claim Number 2 Deason lost time on December 11 and 12 in order to work as a Train Dispatcher on December 12. He then returned to his regular assignment and again lost time from that assignment on December 17 and 18 in order to work as a Train Dispatcher on December 17 and 19. In each of the two separate periods Deason suffered a loss even though he did earn more in the aggregate over the entire length of time under discussion. He is entitled to be compensated for the loss in those periods.

        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 violated.


                        A WAR D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT 130ARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attes

      Nancy J. ver - E~cecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1987.