PARTIES ) Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: May Carrier under the terms of Article
 IV, Section. 1, credit compensation for
 overtime worked by a protected employee
 on a position (or positions) acquired
 subsequent to October 1, 1964 against
 the guarantee of normal rate of compen
 sation, w'_ien the position to which such
 employee was regularly assigned on Octo
 ber 1, 1964 did not normally vlork overtime:
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The claimant in this case held a Star Agent's posi
 tion or. October 1, 1964, which worked six days a week.
 Compensation was calculated on a monthly basis com
 prehending 211-2/3 hours, including holidays. The question is
 whether overtime hours now worked in a different position may be
 applied as an offset against guaranteed compensation.

 While claimant "did not normally work overtime," as the issue indicates, his scheduled hours were considerably in excess of a 40-hour week. Nevertheless, according to the Organization, Carrier is required to pay him the difference between his present 40-hour earnings and the pay he received for mere than 48. According to Carrier, its method of computing the difference between Claimant's monthly earnings and his guarantee is even more generous than required by the Agreement, but in no event may the employee justifiably seek to obtain the difference between his protected cc^,» nsation and his rate for a 40 hour week.

 Under Article IV, Section 1, Carrier is required to insure that protec.od employees "shall not be placed in a worse position with respect to com»ensation than the normal rate of compensation" on October 1, 1964. There is no obligation to


increase the October 1, 1964, compensation which would result if it guaranteed a protected employee the monthly rate he received for 211-2/3 hours in addition to overtime pay for any hours now worked in excess of 40 per week. The employee surely is not placed in a worse position so long as he works no more hours than he had worked to obtain his guaranteed rate.

 The facts in this case make it unnecessary to decide whetl=er, as the Question suggests, an e:-Eployee may be required to %aork a greater number of hours as an offset against his guaranteed rate than --le had worked in his protected position.

            The answer to the Question is Yes, relating it specifically to the facts of this case which concern the guaranteed rate of a six-day position.


                          Milton Friedman

                          Neutral !.?ember


Washington, D. C.
 November/, 6, 1970

                            -2-