Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29168
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29325
 92-3-90-3-236
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: '-aim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. Carrier violated the current Clerical Agreement when it failed and/or refused to compensate Clerk E. L. Griffin one (1) day's guaranteed pay for the week of May 22 -hrough 28, 1989.

 2. As a resu:-- of the above violation, Carrier shall compensate Clerk E. L. Griffin a guarantee day at the rate of $104.70."

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

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

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

Claimant, who holds a Guaranteed Extra Board position at Pensacola, Florida, seeks one day's guaranteed pay for the week beginning on Monday, May 22, and ending on Sunday, May 28, 1989.

 The fourth paragraph of Section I of the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement effective December 3, 1985 reads:
Form 1 Award No. 29168
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29325
 92-3-90-3-236

 Subsequently, the parties substituted "forty hours per week" for "ten days per half."

 During the week in question, Claimant worked on Mondc , Friday, Saturday and Sunday. On the three days Claimant di. not perfc m service, he was available, but not =a11ed. The Carrier declined to pay Claimant's compensation to bring Claimant Claimant did not displace a junior extra board employee, who was working Position 160, on Thursdav, ;lay 25, 1989. The Carrier asserts that Claimant had a mandatory obligation to exercise his displacement rights per Schedule Rule 15(1) which provides:

The specific language in the fourth oaragraph of Section I of the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement effective Dt ember 3, 1985 controls over the more general, permissi.·e displacement terminology in Schedule Rule 15(1). The former Rule specifically speaks to reducing the forty hour guarantee. Claimant completely complied v inasmuch as he was not called. There is not any provision in the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement manifesting the parties' intent that Guaranteed Extra Board employees are compeLLed to exercise the permissive displacement privilege afforded by Rule 15( Section II(d) of the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement strongly suggests that the drafters of the Agre-ment did not intend for Rule 15(1) to be applied to the factual situation in :his case. Section II(d) of the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement states:

While the record is unclear concerning whether the junior Guaranteed Extra Board employee was fil`ig a vacancy which continued to endure, their inclusion of this paragraph :i parties' intent that a senior Guaranteed Extra Board employee need not displace a junior Guarante=i maintain his extra boars guarantee.
 Form 1 Award No. 29168
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29325
 92-3-90-3-236

 Furthermore, there is some doubt that Claimant could have fulfilled the advance notice requirement in Rule 15(1) since he apparently did not know if the Carrier was going to call him on Thursday or the ensuing days in the Monday through Sunday workweek.






Attest:
      Nancy J. De Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of April 1992.