(h) Employees notified or called to perform work on a rest day of their regular assignment shall be allowed a minimum of six (6) hours pay for four (J) hours work or less and if held on duty in excess of four (4) hours, time and one-half i% ill be allowed on a minute basis."

The Organization submits that the Carrier's contention that the Claimants were involved in a normal exercise of the "excused" or "E" time arrangement, is not valid and that there is a distinguishing line between the circumstances of this case and the normal exercise of "E" time. More specificallv, the Organization submits that because the Carrier erred in overstaffing the RSO on Easter Sunday, April 11, 1993, the Claimants %~ere required to report for work and to work, and that because of such overstaffing, the Carrier is obligated to pay each Claimant the six hour minimum for April 11, 1993 required for less than four hours of work by Rule 14(b).

The Carrier submits that the "E" time arrangement has been in place at the subject RSO since 1975, that the arrangement is mutually beneficial to the employees and the Carrier, and that no claim, prior to the instant claim, has ever been filed and progressed as a result of the Carrier's use of the "E" time arrangement.

The "E" time arrangement, as revealed by the record, commenced at the subject RSO in the latter part of 197.1. "E" time allows employees to take time off voluntarily without pay, in hours or full days on any day of the week including holidays. No Reservation .Agent. called for work, has ever been forced to leave work under "E" time, and when "E" time is in effect, the emplovees offered "E" time may remain at work for the full eight hours at their option.

In assessing the foregoing and the entire record, including the parties' Submissions in support of their positions in this case, the Board concludes that there is no basis of record on which these claims could be sustained. The Board finds, specifically, that because these Claimants voluntarily left work after three hours on the claim date, under the "E" time arrangement, in circumstances in which they could have remained at work for a full eight hour tour, their claims for a minimum of six hours pay under Rule 14(h) are estopped. One cannot accept the benefits of an arrangement such

as "E" time and, concurrently, claim compensation that would be due only if the arrangement were not in place. In short, the Claimants will not be permitted to icave work before completing an eight hour shift with permission, and then claim pay for time that they did not work, but could has a worked up to the full eight hours, had they opted to do so. Accordingly, these claims are estopped because of the acceptance by the Claimants of the benefits of the "E" time arrangement.

AWARD