(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Qnployes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

(a) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when they failed to properly coanpensate Clerk S. A. Parrino for work performed on March 11, 1978.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate Clerk Parrino the difference between 8 hours pay at the pro rata rate of $59.49 per day and 8 hours pay at the punitive rate of $59.49 per day."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, at the time of this dispute, was a furloughed
 employe at Newport News, Virginia. During the period of
 March 6, 1978 - March 11, 1978, Claimant was lined up to fill the position of
 Lift Truck Operator.

Previously, Claimant had been informed that he was required to provide proof of his illness. On March 10, 1978, Claimant provided documentation for March 6 and 7. result of the Sick Rule. Since no proof of illness was provided for March 9 and 10, Claimant was charged as off without pay.

 On March 11, 1978, Claimant was called to protect a vacancy. Since, at that time, Claimant had been ccupensated for only 24 hours during that work week, Claimant was compensated at the pro rata rate for March 11, 1978.

 Subsequently, on March 15, 1978, Claimant provided proof of illness for his absence of March 9 and 10. In turn, he was allowed pay for those days.

 The organization contends that March 11, 1978, constituted Claimant's 6th day of work in the wor have been compensated at the punitive rate for that day.

 Carrier, on the other hand, argued that it properly compensated him at the pro rata rate. According to Carrier, as of March 11th, Claimant had failed to provide the medical proof as required. As such, he was absent without pay for March 9 and have been called on March 11th as he would have been compensated for March 9 and 10 (see Rule 12). In the Carrier's view, the problems that may have occurred were caused by Claimant's failure to provide adequate documentation as required until March 15th.
                        Docket Number CL-24476


This Board has previously addressed this identical issue between these same parties. In both Awards 25379 and 25438 we held that payment at the pro rata rate was appropriate as the employe, as of the disputed date, had less than forty compensated hours since the previous dates were not, as of the date of the assignment, compensated days. The fact that those dates were subsequently converted to compensated dates was of no moment. Nothing presented herein persuades us consistent with the time honored doctrine of stare decisis, this Claim must also 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 Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AGTUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attes

        Nancy J,9*4er - Executive Secretary


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