Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29220
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28507
 92-3-88-3-323
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to compensate Motor Car Repair Foreman G. Young at the time and one-half overtime rate of pay for service he performed on August 26, 27, September 2, 8, 9, 18, 23 and 24, 1986, and thereafter (System File SJ-5-86/WM-16-86).

 (2) As a consequence of the violation referred to within Part (1) hereof, the Claimant shall be allowed pay in the amount of the difference between his straight time rate of pay and his time and one-half overtime rate of pay for the dates enumerated within Part (1) hereof and subsequent dates on which he performed said service."

 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.

To understand the Organization's position, it is essential to understand its view of the facts. Work Equipment (S&WE) Sub-Department and all positions in the Bridge and Building and Track Sub-Departments. Subsequently, the Carrier reestablished certain positions in certain classifications. However, no positions were reestablished within tae SSWE Sub-Department. Thereafter, the Carrier called furloughed employees holding seniority within the SSWE Sub-Department to perform irregular or part-t Form 1 Award No. 29220
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28507
 92-3-88-3-323

 The Claimant was one of those furloughed employees that was recalled and he was utilized 8 hours on 8 days between August 26 and September 24 (August 26, 27, September 2, 8, 9, 18, 23, 24, 1986). He was paid straight time and it is the contention of the Organization that he is entitled to time and one-half for all hours worked based on Rule 53 which states:











        (c) Employes laid off in reduction of force and retaining seniority under the provisions of Rule 36 when called back temporarily for special service will be compensated as follows:


        When working the full hours of assigument on the gang with which employed will be paid eight (8) hours at pro rata rate.


          When called for irregular or part time service outside of regular work period, will be paid as per paragraph (a) of this rule." Emphasis added)

Form 1 Award No. 29220
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28507
 92-3-88-3-323

 In the opinion of the Organization, because all the jobs were abolished and not rebulletined in this Sub-Department, there were no regular hours. Accordingly, it argues that the Claimant's work was outside regular hours and subject to time and one-half based on Rule 53.

 The Board notes at the outset that the Carrier raises a time limit argument. It notes the bulletin abolishing the positions in question was issued July 23, 1986, and that the claim was not filed until October 16 beyond the 60-day time limit. Clearly, the Carrier's argument misses the mark. The Time Limit Rule (Rule 59) requires that all claims must be presented to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim is based. There can be no serious dispute that the cause of action in this case was not the bulletin but the fact that the Claimant was not paid overtime for the dates in question. The claim was filed within 60 days of his knowledge that he was only paid straight time.

 Regarding the merits, it is observed that Rule 53 and Section C in particular has been subject to interpretation in a previous dispute between the parties. In Third Division Award 26707 the Board stated the following regarding Rule 53(c):

        "The contract states that when a furloughed employee is called back temporarily for special service the employee will be paid at the pro rata rate when working the full hours of assignment. This can mean, according to reasonable rules of language construction, nothing other than the hours of service assi outside of these full hours of assignment, the employee on callback must be paid in accordanc Rule 53(a), which is the overtime rate."

                                (Emphasis added)


Applying this interpretation to the facts and arguments, the Board notes that the Organization has failed to identify or establish the regular hours of the position being worked by the Claimant. It has simply made a carte blanche assertion that all the hours he worked were outside the regular work period. This kind of application of Rule 53 cannot be supported. Ordinarily, an employee who is assumes its regular hours. In this unique case, there evidently was not any formally established hours. While the Carrier may have been obligated to post regular hours, that is an independent claim and the fact they did not would not necessarily result in time and one-half being paid for literally every hour a recalled employee worked in such circumstances. The Claimant constructively had regular hours week. Moreover, there is no claim he was not assigned proper rest days.
 Form 1 Award No. 29220
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-28507
 92-3-88-3-323

                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Opp
 Attest: 1~4zdF46-, frte-~
      'Nancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.