Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27088
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26806
 88-3-85-3-558
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 (Britherhood 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 assigned a junior machine operator to perform overtime service on January 24, 25, 26, 30, 31 and February 1 and 2, 1984, instead of using Machine Operator J. Nunes, who was senior, available, qualified and willing to perform that service (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-993).

 (2) Machine Operator J. Nunes shall be allowed seventy (70) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate."

 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.

The Claimant herein originally sought pay for 70 hours at time and one-half rate for work performed by a less senior employee. The record shows that the Carrier and the Organization, during the claims handling procedure on the property, agreed that the Agreement was violated with the understanding that the appropriate time period on which to base compensation is 60 hours.

 The sole issue before the Board, therefore, is whether the 60 hours is properly payable at straight time rate, or at the rate of time and onehalf. In confining the disp venture into a controversy which has been reviewed and decided in a seemingly
 Form 1 Award No. 27088
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26806
 88-3-85-3-558

 unending chain of disputes. The Board fully recognizes that innumerable Awards have ruled in favor if straight time as an appropriate remedy, and innumerable Awards have ruled in favor of the time and one-half pay remedy. Counting the number of Awards or reviewing the arguments in favor of either position would be to no avail, except to highlight one obvious conclusion. This conclusion is that, in general, agreement language does not clearly and unambiguously specify which position is correct. The decisions are made on various bases such as precedent, practice and/or the diverse views as to the purpose of punitive pay (reward for extra hours of work) in contrast with a make-whole theory to provide compensation in lieu of lost work opportunity.

 Further, many Awards recognize a general consistency which exists within single Divisions of the Board. For example, the Organization cites two Third Division Awards, in which this Referee participated, sustaining time and one-half pay based on the "great weight of previous Awards of this Division" (Award 26448) and "in keeping with the predominant practice on this Division" (Award 25968). There are, however, other Third Division Awards which direct straight time payment. On the other hand, the Carrier cites five Second Division Awards, in which this Referee also participated, providing for straight time pay "in keeping with established precedent" on the Division (Award 8708), and "previous reasoning and decision" (Award 7747). See also Awards 8254, 7504 and 7356.
To further show lack of clear direction, the Organization and the Carrier received five separate Third Division Awards in 1987, each addressing the issue, directly or indirectly, with mixed results. Award 26508 examined Third Division precedent generally and sustained the claim for time and onehalf. This was echoed in property," among other factors. Award 26456 also sustained the claim at straight time, but without providing any reasoning therefor. Finally, Award 26534 examined the issue in detail, particularly as it applies to the parties' particular circumstances, and ruled in favor of payment of straight time.
The particular circumstances involving the parties are significant. As pointed out by the Carrier, many claims have been settled on the property where the settlement provided straight time only for missed overtime work. The Carrier argues that this has been consistent practice. In rebuttal, the Organization points to the inherent danger of relying on on-property resolutions, which may be of a underlying principle. Upon examination of the record, however, the Board finds that many of these on-property resolutions demonstrated no evidence of compromise settlements.
 Form 1 Award No. 27088
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26806
 88-3-85-3-558

 In sum, this Bard continues to recognize these diametrically opposed views as represented by a long history of consideration of the question. The Board cannot clarify the matter in the absence of unequivocal agreement Language, obviously :lot pre however, as co~itrasted to Thir.i Division consideration generally, leads to the conclusion that the payment of straight time is the more consistent result, and in this concurs with the reasoning in Third Division Award 26534, as follows:



This Finding and Award conform to the Statement of Claim as originally provided to the Board. Th degree that the proper payment to the Claimant is 60 hours pay at straight time, if not previously allowed.




                          By Order of Third Division


                  00


Attest:
      r 904

      Nancy J. opffer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of May 1988.