Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27164
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-26696
 88-3-85-3-448
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it called Claimant R. C. Leathers to perform service on two (2) separate occasions on his rest day and compensated him for only one (1) rest day call payment for June 9, 1984.

 2. Carrier's action is in violation of Rule 26(a) of the Agreement between the parties.

 3. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant Leathers for one additional rest day call of five (5) hours twenty (20) minutes at the time and one-half rate for claim date, June 9, 1984."

 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 employees 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 events precipitating the instant claim are not in dispute. At all times relevant, Claimant was assigned to the position of TelegrapherClerk, Job Number 391, at Ma A.M. to 3:00 P.M., with rest days on Saturday and Sunday.

 On Saturday, June 9, 1984, Claimant's assigned rest day, Carrier called him to report for duty. The Claimant reported at 4:35 P.M. and was told to copy and deliver train orders to the EXTRA UP 2904 East. He completed this assignment at 5:25 P.M. and was told by the Carrier's dispatch that he could return home. On the same date, Claimant was again called and reported at 6:15 P.M. Upon arriving at the depot he was told to copy and deliver train orders to the EXTRA 3082 West. He completed this assignment at 6:46 P. M. and was released by the dispatcher.
 Form 1 Award No. 27164
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-26696
 88-3-85-3-448
 Claimant filed a request for two "call payments" each for five hours
 and twenty minutes at the time and one-half rate of pay.

 At issue here is the interpretation and application of two rules in the Agreement which provide for overtime, calls, rest day and holiday work rules. They state as follows:



          (a) Service on Rest Days.


          Service rendered by employes on their assigned rest days shall be paid for under the provisions of Rule 25 (f) with a minimum of 5 hours and 20 minutes at the time and one-half rate, unless relieving an employe assigned to such day, in which case they will be paid the rate of the position occupied with a minimum of eight hours at the time and one-half rate.


                          Rule 25


                      Overtime and Calls


          (f) Employes notified or called to perform work not continuous with, before or after the regular work period, shall be allowed a minimum of three (3) hours for two (2) hours' work or less, and if held on duty in excess of two (2) hours, time and one-half will be allowed on a minute basis."


The Organization's position is that it is the number of calls the employee receives on his rest days, and not the amount of work performed, which determines what the employe is to be paid. Not surprisingly, Carrier disagrees, and argues that it is the actual work or "service" performed by the Claimant, in this case a total of one hour and twenty-one minutes, that determine the amount of paym than the minimum five hours and twenty minutes provided in Rule 26 (a), Claimant should not be paid twice the minimum amount. Had the work taken longer than five hours and twenty minutes to accomplish or if the work on the rest day was performed at two different times falling outside a five hour and twenty minute time span, the Carrier concedes that the Organization would have a valid argument. In this case, however, where the work was completed in one hour and twenty-one minutes and it was performed within a time span of two hours and eleven minutes, the Carrier contends the claim must be denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 27164
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-26696
 88-3-85-3-448

 The Board has reviewed the record in this case as well as the precedent awards cited by the part the facts contained in this record, we are persuaded that the logic and reasoning of Second Division the Board was called upon to interpret a contract provision similar to that at issue here, one in which employes called or required to report to work were allowed a minimum of four hours for two hours and forty minutes or less. In sustaining the claim, the Board noted:

          "The Agreement makes no allowances for combining calls nor did the record contain any facts to support Carrier's statement that it had always combined calls and paid on a continuous basis in past situations like the one here. One must keep in mind that call-in provisions guaranteeing hours of pay have been placed in contracts to assure employes that they will receive a reasonable amount of pay when they are inconvenienced and have to report for work at other than their scheduled time. In the instant case, Claimant was required to report for work twice during a six-hour period. There is no basis in the contract or in labor relation principles to support, the contention that he should be paid for only one call."


In this case, we find that when Claimant was called to service from 4:35 P.M. to 5:25 P.M. on June 9, 1984, his assigned rest day, was released from service and then called again to perform service from 6:15 P.M. to 6:46 P.M., he should have been compensated for an additional rest day call as claimed by the Organization.

                        A WAR D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J,/~er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June 1988.