PARTIES: BROTHERHCCD OF RAIUIA~Y, Aim STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
 FREIGHT HANDLGMS, EXPRESS A!D STATION EMPLOY"-S
 and `- t~h
 THE BALTIZIC.E AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
 AWARD IN DOCKLT 140. 26 `J

 STATEMENT Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
 OF CLAI11-i:
 (a) Carrier violated the Clerkso Agreement when it did not compensate Rate Clerk H. B. Zimmerman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for five hours and forty minutes at pro rata rate on August 19, 1955, in compliance with Rule 24(a) of the Clerksp Agreement, and

 (b) Claimant Zimmerman shall now be allowed five hours and forty minutes pay in addition to compensation received by him for services rendered on Friday, August 19, 1955.

 FIPDINGS: Claimant, a rate clerk, assigned to the General Freight Office in
 Cincinnati, was required to perform service away from his headquarters in Chicago. His regular hours were from 8 Ail to 5 FM. He left Chicago for Cincinnati on Friday, August 19, 1955, at 1.15 IM, arriving at 10.40 FM. He claims 5 hours 40 minutes pro rata pay from 5 PPH to 10.40 PM on Friday.

 The disposition of this claim turns upon the application of Rule 24(a), which in pertinent part reads as follows:

The claimant had been in Chicano for several days prior to Friday and his necessary expenses and lodging were paid for by the railroad. The employeevs claim is apparently based on the fact that the railroad neither paid for nor furnished lodging on Friday night.

 It is clear that claimant was not required to perform service (within the meaning of Rule 24(a)) after his regular hours on Friday. His lodging was paid for by the railroad while he was traveling. Therefore, the exception with respect to the payment of additional time applies. This is the interpretation which has been followed for many years on this Carrier and the rule clearly admits of such an interpretation. While the employees assert that they have not concurred in
 Docket No. 26

 such an interpretation there is no record of any instance of protest. To interpret the rule as the employees now contend could well work to the disadvantage of the individual involved. Under the interpretation contended for by the employees, the Carrier without penalty could have held the claimant in Chicago until the end of the working day and furnished him with Pullman accommodations on the night train at little additional expense to it, but with considerable inconvenience to the employee involved.

 AS TARD

 Claim (a) and (b) denied.

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

E. J. Hoffman

Employee Member


Is/ T. S. Woods
 T. S. Woods
 Carrier Member

 Dated at Baltimore, Maryland this 19th day of February, 1959