P ARTIES T-C Division, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks
 TO
 DfPt JTE : a nd

STATEMENT The claim, as appealed by the Organization, reaus:
 F



FINDINGS : Public Law Board No. 713, by reason of the Agreement dLqted
 February 25, 1971, and upon the whole record And all of the
 evidence, finds that the parties herein are f:arrier end employe within
 the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that. this Board
 has Jurisdiction.

 Claimant was a reg,ilarly assigned Telegrapher at Renton, Wast·innton with hours of 2:30 P.M. to 10:30 p.m. Monday throuCh Friday and Saturday and Sunday as rest days. He was compelled to attend ten consecutive four hour sessions in COMPASS training on each of ten consecutive days of four hours each starting Wednesday, October 6, 1971 through Friday, October 15, 1971. His class sessions were from 8:00 a.m. until noon. After such classes he reported to work at 2:30 P.M. on each of his scheduled work days. Such training sessions were held on Saturday and Sunday, October 9 and 10, lL~?1. Carrier paid him :^ 80 u~s - 10 -lays at 4 hours each - at the pro rata rate of his applicable ,fob assignment.

 Initially, Carrier argues that the claim is barred under Rule 54. The original claim dated November 30, 1971 asked merely for the difference between time and one half and etraignt time for the 40 hours. This was declined on December 30, 1971. On January 3, 1971 the Vice General Chairman wrote to the Superintendent amending the claim to include one hour travel time for each of the ten days at the pro rats rate.

 Employes' letter of January 3, 1971 did not materially change the essence of the claim timely filed on November 30, 1971. While the lanFua.ge in the January 3rd letter could have been wore es)lio;t, it is nonetheless, also an appeal from the Superintendent's denial. The
 Superintendent arparentl:· considered it as such when he n-ain,declined 't on January 7, 1c7L without raising a time limit issue. The claim is properly before the Board on the merits.

 Employes rely heavily on Award No. 7 of Special Board of Adjustment Established ?wsuant to Appendix "K" - Burlington Northern, Inc. The parties were this Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks. That Board sustained a comparable claim for compensation to an employe who was also compelled to attend CQAFASS training, classes outside his regular assigned hours and on his rest days. The Board held that:

 "...that it would be inappropriate in light of existing contract provisions, to hold that the mandatory attendance at training sessions primarily conducted so that the Carrier may be able to take full advantage of and utilize the benefits of modern office technology, is excluded from the contractual proscriptions against utilizing an employe's services for more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week, except upon the payment of the prescribed premium wage rates.

 Continuing, that Board found that: "7be several contract provisions do not purport to describe all the elements of service, which constitute 'work:' Nor, however, do these contract provisions specifically exclude training sessions from the scope of 'work'."

 But Rule 49 of the Agreement in this case rPada as follows:

No comparable rule was before the Board that adopted Award No. 7. That Board found "that the Carrier initiated this program as a sound business venture rather than an eleemosynary gesture."
Claimant was "detailed on business for the Carrier when he was compelled .
 to attend the ten training sessions so that he would be better "equippel .
 to carry new, and presumably more efficient operations." That being the
 case he is entitled to compensation only at the pro rata rate. Neither
 does this rule provide for travel time. -16 _ s

 Rule 49 is a special rule which deals with a specific subject. If the parties intended that employes attending training sessions or compulsory meetings on business for the Carrier be paid at the tide and one-half rate of pay, they would have so provided in the Agreement. Instead, that rule provides for pay only at the straight time rate.
 Under these circumstances, the Board is obliged to find that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement and that the claim has no merit.

 Claim is denied.

 AWARD




~T3~n ck, a maYa eu a Mem ember

 P.A.a Nemc ; -Carla Member

 DATED: ~l -r' i F ).3

 0 it"

 . . o, ey a er