PARTIES: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
 THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
 AWARD IN DOCKET NO. 67
 STATEMENT
 OF CLAIM:

 1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties hereto when on' January 8, 15, 22, 29; February 5, 12, 19 and 26; March _ 12,19,^_6; April 2, 9, 23, 30; May 7 and 14, 1949; June 13, 14, 27, 28; July 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19, 26, 27; August 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30; and September 5, 6, 12 and 13, 1950, it caused required and permitted an employee holding no rights under the Telegraphers' Agreement to relieve Mr. J. E. Dean, the regularly assigned Ticket Agent at McKeesport, Pennsylvania, on his rest days.

 2. Carrier be required to compensate Mr. J. E. Dean, the regularly assigned ticket agent at McKeesport at the rate of time and one-half for on each date listed above when he was improperly relieved on his rest days by an employee not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

 FINDINGS:

 On the dates of claim an employe holding no rights under the Telegraphers' Agreement worked the relief day of the claimant's position. The claim was filed with Carrier's Superintendent on April 11, 1951. Carrier concedes that the Agreement was violated but resists payment of any money on the ground that this is a "back-in" claim.
In situations where the employes acquiesce over a considerable period of time in a practice which is patently violative of the schedule the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board has frequently refused to direct the payment of penalties for dates prior to the time of bringing the violation to the Carrier's attention. This is on the sound theory that it is inequitable for the employes to sit idly by over a long period of time acquiescing in agreement violations and permitting the accumulation. of penalties which the Carrier might have avoided if the violation had been called to its attention at an earlier date. In the instant case, however, it is shown that as early as August 18, 1948 the Carrier's Manager Labor Relations allowed a claim of a nature identical to this. In his letter to the General Chairman the said official stated he was issuing instructions that where relief cannot be furnished an employe occupying a seven day position the work on that position would not be performed by employes not covered by the Agreement even if it be necessary to use the regular assignee on his rest day. It cannot logically be said that it was the employes' failure to bring such violations to the Carrier's attention which permitted the accumulation of fhe penalties here involved.

 The proper penalty is the pro rata rate and we find that the claim should be paid at that rate.
 A W A R D
Claim (1) sustained. Claim (2) sustained at the pro rata rate.

 /s/ Francis J. Robertson
 Francis J. Robertson Chairman

 /s/ B. N. Kinkead
 B. N. Kinkead
 Employe Member

 Dated at Baltimore, Md., this 26th day of April, 1957.

 /s/ T. S. Woods
 T. S. Woods
 Carrier Member

 Docket INo. 67