(the fact that four employes admitted attempting to leave company premises on January 30, 1953, with company property concealed on their persons) is knowingly, by such tactics, practicing a form of harrassment, which is not only inimical to the maintenance of good labor relations but is a deliberate flouting of the law in that in seeking to force the Second Division to make determination of a false issue, the organization is taking a long step in the direction of nullifying the established-by-law purpose of the various Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, i. e., the honest determination of questions involving honest differences of opinion, based upon facts, not assumptions or misrepresentations.

It is alleged by the organization that the named claimants were detained for forty-five (45) minutes after their regular quitting time on January 30, 1953, and that having been so detained they each should be paid forty-five (45) minutes at the time and one-half rate. This allegation is untrue. The named claimants were not detained. Any statement to the contrary is false. No payment is due the claimants for service performed on January 30, 1953, which has not already been made.

In conclusion, the carrier is setting forth below, its opinion as to the reasons why it considers that the instant dispute is not a proper one, but if the Board should nevertheless assurne jurisdiction, that it could have no alternative but to dismiss the claim in its entirety because it is based upon a tissue of unwarranted assumptions and misrepresentations.

If the Board should assume jurisdiction of this dispute, the claim should be dismissed in its entirety, because:

1. The :organization has refused to make any effort to establish the truth or the. facts in connection with this dispute, i. e.,

(a) The claimants were not unjustly dealt with.

(b) The claimants were not detained 45 minutes after their regular quitting time on January 30, 1953.

(c) The claimants were not searched by carrier's special agents on January 30, 1953.

(d) The claimants were not unlawfully handled on January 30, 1953.

(e) The claimants were not given discriminatory handling on January 30, 1953.

(f) The claimants have been properly paid under the provisions of the applicable agreement for any compensation due them on January 30, 1953.

The carrier is uninformed as to the arguments the organization will advance in their ex parte submission and accordingly reserves the right to submit additional facts, evidence and argument as it may conclude are necessary to reply to the organization's ex parte submission or any subsequent oral arguments or briefs submitted by the organization in this dispute.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Carrier has a policy of long standing of requiring Special Service Department Representatives to make periodical observations of employes leaving

"For continuous service, after regular working hours, employes will be paid time and one-half on the actual minute basis, with a minimum of one (1) hour for forty (40) minutes service or less."

The organization contends that claimants were compelled to remain on the premises and submit to a search and patting down by the carrier's special agent. No company property was found on the claimants.

Carrier asserts that the named special agents stationed themselves at the 21st Street entrance to prevent by observation of employes the possible pilferage of property belonging to the carrier. It asserts that the operation was completed at 3:50 P. M. During this period, those carrying bundles or packages were requested to show their contents. If it appeared that any appeared to be concealing something on their person, they were requested to exhibit that which they concealed. Four employes, including three carmen who are not included as claimants, were found in possession of company property. Carrier positively asserts that claimants were not detained, none were searched, and none were patted down. It is stated that not more than twenty were requested to open packages or exhibit concealed property and that others, including these claimants, were not detained at all.

The organization produced approximately 20 statements by employes that they were "searched" by the special agents. They do not state the facts which are alleged to constitute a search. The word "search" has many meanings and the conclusion that one was "searched" could vary from a casual observation to the most meticulous examination of one's person. Statements made in such general terms are not very helpful to the Board in resolving cases of this kind.

The submission of the organization does not establish that claimants performed service for the carrier as that term is used in Rule 7 (a). The carrier has the right to protect its property and there is an obligation on the part of employes to assist in so doing. The record discloses that some employes were somewhat inconvenienced but it does not indicate they performed service. If the carrier exceeded its rights and infringed upon the personal rights of these claimants, it is a matter where the law and not the collective agreement affords the remedy. The claim made does not come within any reasonable interpretation of "continuous service after regular working hours" as used in Rule 7 (a).

AWARD