Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26777
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26537
 88-3-85-3-280
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to properly compensate Foreman T. Panoc and Trackmen M. Damiano and W. Mumenthaler for the overtime work they were called to perform on October 23, 1983 (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-813).

 (2) The claimants shall each be allowed an additional four (4) hours of pay at their respective time and one-half rates."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimants are members of a gang headquartered at Paoli, Pennsylvania. On Sunday, October 23, 1983, (a designated rest day) the Carrier required Claimants to report for duty to provide flagging protection for contracting forces. Claimants were released after being held by the Carrier for four hours because the contracting forces failed to appear at the job site. Claimants were compensated by and one-half rates.

 The Organization argues that Claimants were entitled to payment for four more hours at their time and one-half rates. The Carrier asserts that Claimants were properly paid.
 Form 1 Award No. 26777
 Page 2 Docket No. mw-26537
 88-3-85-3-280

















The clear language of Rule 54 requires the entry of a sustaining Award. Here, Claimants were required to report for protect service on an assigned Sunday rest day. By the language of that Rule, they were entitled to eight and not four hours at their time and one-half rates.

 The Carrier's argument that in this case Claimants were advised to report for pre-determined overtime to afford flagging protection for contractor forces thereby bring 53 and not Rule 54 is without merit. The distinction that the Carrier seeks to make between pre-determined overtime and being called to provide protect service on a standby basis is not supported by a reading of the Rules. Rule 54 is very specific and mandates eight hours of pay at the time and one-half rate when an employe is "required to report for 'Protect Service'." In this case, Claimants were required to repo the provisions of Rule 54 and not Rule 53.
 Form 1 Award No. 26777
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26537
 88-3-85-3-280

 In light of the above, we do not address the parties' arguments concerning whether a pro-rata or overtime payment should be made in this case. Our decision requiring the payment of eight hours at the time and one-half rate is mandated by the specific provisions of Rule 54 and not general provisions concerning overtim


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: _
      Nancy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 1988.

CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT

TO

AWARD 26777, DOCKET MW-26537

(REFEREE BENN)


The Majority erred in finding "protect service" as contemplated by Rule 54 equivalent to predete
was fully developed in the on-property handling, "protect service" pursuant to Rule 54 was taker. verbatim from the December 16, 1945 Pennsylvania Railroad Company - Maintenance of Way Employes Agreement, and never governed flagging f its long years of existence, the Rule has been used very infrequently, as it is only applicable to employees required to report for duty, without specific assignment, to guard special train movements and simply be available to quickly respond to any trouble which might arise in the course thereof. Indeed, Decision No. 357 of the Pennsylvania Railroad - Long Island Rai of Adjustment confirms and is evidence of that fact. The Majority has overlooked the significance of that Decision and the historical application of the Rule in question.
 Further, in the context of overall contract construction, if the "protect service" Rule were intended to govern normal flagging overtime assignments on holidays and Sundays, then such Rule would not have been included in the Schedule Agreement as an exception to the rules governing the normal payment of overtime. The distinction of Rule 54 from regular overtime assignments, such as that concerned in this case, was established on the property.

    For these reasons, we dissent to the ruling of the Majority

                        _ 2 -


Carrier Members' Dissent to
 Award 26777, Docket MW-26537

 in this case and must state, for the record, that it should not be considered precedential.

                                M. C. Lesnik


                                M. ing but


                                .

                                  i~,

                                  L. Hicks


                                P. V. Varga

                                - 0 ~-I

                                    Yost //


2/25/88