Form 1 LkTIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29321
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28753
 92-3-89-3-160
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 !Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

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

I. Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerk's Agreement at Los Angeles, California, on March 14, 1988, when it failed and/or refused to call D. A. Shenk to protect the short vacancy of J. T. Hicks Position No. 6330; and

 2. D. A. Shenk shall now be compensated eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of Towerman Position No. 6330 for March 14, 1988, in addition to any other compensation Claimant may have received for this day."

 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 Organization filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf, contending that the Carrier violated Rule 7 of the Agreement when it allowed a Towerman to work Position No. 6330 on March 14, 1988, when he had not been off duty at least 16 hours beforehand, as required by Rule 7. The Carrier denied the claim on grounds that dispatchers on the property had decertified and therefore were not subj Form 1 Award No. 29321
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28753
 92-3-89-3-160
 This Board has reviewed the record in this case and we find that the
 Rule at issue is very clear. Rule 7 provides:

That language clearly states that if an employee works as an Extra Train Dispatcher, that employee must be off duty not less than sixteen hours before being allowed to perform any service under the Agreement.

 The record reveals that the Towerman had been off duty for only fifteen hours and one minute prior to returning to a position covered by the Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Carrier was required to declare the position vacant on March 14, 1988, and to fill it in accordance with Rule 14. That would have made the position available to the Claimant. The Carrier did not do that and, therefore, was in violation of the Agreement. The Claimant should have been called in to work.

 This Board rejects the arguments of the Carrier relating to the Yardmaster Section of the Agreement.

 Once this Board has determined that there is a violation of the Agreement, we next must determine how much compensation shall be paid to the Claimant for the violation of his rights. The Organization seeks payment in the amount of time and one-half in addition to any other compensation that Claimant may have received for that day. The record reveals that the Claimant's regular days off place on a Monday. Consequently, Claimant is definitely entitled to time and one-half for the time that he should have been called in to work. However, if Claimant worked for the Carrier during the same hours that the Towerman was wrongfully called back to work, that pay should be deducted from the award made to the Claimant. The Agreement does not allow for penalty payments, but merely allows for the Claimant to be made whole. Time and one-half payment will make the Claimant whole. However, he should not be double paid for any time worked that day.
 Form 1 Award No. 29321
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-28753
 92-3-89-3-160

      Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. p v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of July 1992.