Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27751
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26876
 89-3-85-3-651
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(National Railroad Passenger Corporation

(Amtrak) - Northeast Corridor


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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it compensated Messrs. G. Young, D. F. Williams, W. Patton, W. G. Crook, W. L. Williams, A. Cunha, E. T. Dickson and G. C. McIntosh at the straight time rate instead of the time and one-half rate for the ten (10) hours of work they each performed on the Panel Renewal System on both March 11 and 23, 1984 (System File NEC-BMWESD-1049).

 (2) As a consequence of the afore-said violation, Claimants G. Young, D. F. Williams, W. Patton, W. G. Crook, W. L. Williams, A. Cunha, E. T. Dickson and G. C. McIntosh shall each be allowed the difference between their respective straight time and time and one-half rates of pay for twenty (20) hours."

 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 in this case were all regularly assigned to the Panel Renewal System Unit at the time of the instant dispute. When this unit was established, employees assigned thereto worked ten hours per day, Monday through Thursday, with Friday, Saturday and Sunday as designated rest days.

 On February 29, 1984, Carrier issued a new work schedule for the PRS Unit which, according to the Organization, required Claimants to work as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 27751
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26876
 89-3-85-3-651
 Date Work Schedule Rate of Pay
 March 5, Monday work 10 hours straight time
 March 6, Tuesday work 10 hours straight time
 March 7, Wednesday work 10 hours straight time
 March 8, Thursday work 10 hours straight time
 March 9, Friday rest day - -
 March 10, Saturday work 10 hours time and one-half
 March 11, Sunday work 10 hours straight time
 March 12, Monday work 10 hours straight time
 March 13, Tuesday work 10 hours straight time
 March 14, Wednesday rest day - -
 March 15, Thursday rest day - -
 March 16, Friday rest day - -
 March 17, Saturday work 10 hours straight time
 March 18, Sunday work 10 hours straight time
 March 19, Monday work 10 hours straight time
 March 20, Tuesday work 10 hours straight time
 March 21, Wednesday rest day - -
 March 22, Thursday rest day - -
 March 23, Friday work 10 hours straight time"

 The Organization maintains that Claimants are entitled to pay at their time and one-half rate for the work they were scheduled to perform on Sunday, March 11 and Friday, March 23, 1984. We agree with the Organization's position, in part. The relevant rules are as follows:












Form 1 Award No. 27751
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26876
 89-3-85-3-651
 known in advance that a five (5) day week will not
 be practicable and feasible for the duration of the
 unit, those times will be specified in such notice.
 At all other times, the Chief Engineer may change
 the work week from five (5) days to four (4) days,
 or vice versa, upon at least five (5) days written
 notice to the involved employes and the General
 Chairman, except that such changes may be made in
 less than five (5) days upon concurrence of the
 General Chairman.
 PARAGRAPH 1(D):
 A work week consisting of four ten-hour work days
 may be established with any three consecutive days
 as rest days.
 RULE 45
 TIME WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40 STRAIGHT TIME HOURS IN
 ANY WORK WEEK
 Time worked in excess of 40 straight time hours in
 any work week, shall be paid at time and one-half
 rates, except where such work is performed by an
 employe due to moving from one assignment to
 another, or where days off are being accumulated in
 accordance with the provisions of Rule 39."

 From the above-quoted rules, it is clear that the Carrier was allowed to establish a workweek consisting of four (4) ten (10) hour workdays followed by three (3) rest days. It is also not disputed, in this particular claim, that the Carrier was permitted to change the rest days of the Claimants' assignments. However, it is (7) day period beginning on the first day on which a particular assignment is bulletined to work and consists of a specific number of workdays followed by a specified number of rest days. In this case the Claimants were initially assigned to positions with Friday, Saturday and Sunday designated as rest days. Hence, when the Claimants began their workweek complete that workweek, including the observation of the designated rest days, i.e., Friday, Saturday and Sunday, March 10, 11, and 12, 1984, respectively. The same principle applied to each of the successive workweeks in March as the Carrier changed the Claimants' assignments. When the Carrier required the Claimants to work on any of the three (3) rest days following each forty (40) hour workweek assignment, they were entitled to receive compensation at the overtime rate for the work performed on those days.

 Our conclusions in this regard are bolstered by a series of Awards decided by this Board, all involving claims similar to the one herein. Illustrative of those cases i stated:
 Form 1 Award No. 27751
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-26876
 89-3-85-3-651
 "A review of the record before the Board warrants
 the conclusion that the Carrier is in error in the
 manner in which it is interpreting the operant
 Agreement and the Special Construction Gangs Agree
 ment. Rule 40 unambiguously defines a 'work week'
 as one beginning on the first day on which an
 assignment is bulletined to work. Paragraph 1(d)
 of the Special Construction Gangs Agreement clearly
 states that such work week can consist of 4 ten-















Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Carrier erred in its application of the schedule Agreem the property that in spite of the February 29, 1984 PRS schedule, payroll records revealed that none of the Claimants performed service on March 11, 1984, and Claimant Crook was on vacation that day. In addition, Claimant Young took a voluntary absence on March 23, 1984. Therefore, Claimants, with the exception of Claimant Young, shall be paid the difference between the overtime and pro rata rate





                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. v - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March 1989.