It is evident from the foregoing that management has not restricted itself in the operation of its diesel shop to the extent claimed by the employes. The decision on the type of repairs necessary to be made and whether or not they can be performed by our employes by the use of equipment which can be made available at an expense which can be justified by its utilization, rests with the management which alone is responsible for the operation of its business efficiently and economical as is required by law.

Rule 81, quoted below, on which the employes rely to support their contentions and claim was originally incorporated in their agreement made effective on July 1st, 1921. It remained in effect until the current agreement was signed on September ,6, 1950, and was included in the current agreement without change.

"Rule 81-Classification of Work:

Electricians' work shall consist of erecting, repairing, rebuilding, installing, inspecting and maintaining electric generators, switchboards, motors and control, rheostats and control, static and rotoary transformers, motor generators, electric headlights and headlight generators, electric welding machines, storage batteries and axle lighting equipment; winding armatures, telephone equipment, crane operation, fields, magnet coils, rotors, transformers and starting compensators, inside wiring in shops and buildings and on steam and electric locomotives, passenger coaches and motor cars; include cable splicers, wiremen, armature winders and all other work properly recognized as electricians' work."

Traction motors were sent out for repairs or unit exchange prior to September 18, 1950, without protest from employes who were thoroughly familiar with the carrier's actions in this respect, which indicates their concurrence therein as being in full compliance with carrier's obligation under the provisions of Rule No. 81. If this was not so, most certainly they would have requested a revision of the rule in a manner to meet their views. This they did not do, however, they now attempt to secure a revision of that rule through the Second Division, N.R.A.B., which the carrier asserts your Board is not authorized to grant. The employes claim should be denied.

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.

Following the failure of a traction motor, an inspection was made by carrier's electricians. It was found that a lead had burned off and such failure indicated that a great amount of heat had been generated in the motor which probably would have caused some internal damage. The motor had been in continuous use about 21/2 years.

Inasmuch as the carrier deemed an overhaul was necessary, the traction motor was sent to Electro Motive Division of General Motors for the work in question.

The record indicates that the carrier's electricians could have replaced the burned off lead. There is evidence to the effect that several other repairs could have been performed by the carrier's electricians, but there are certain repairs and tests which the carrier asserts could not have been properly carried out on the property with the equipment and tools owned by the

carrier. While on the other hand, the organization has alleged that all of the work could have been performed by the carrier's electricians with the equipment and tools owned by the carrier or with the addition of certain equipment which cost would be nominal. The carrier's position is to the effect that to properly equip its shop with all the tools and equipment necessary to properly overhaul and test these motors would require great outlays of capital.

Clearly the work should have been performed by the claimants if what the organization has contended is correct. By the same token, the carrier's handling was proper if its contentions are correct. However, from the record before us we are unable to determine the true facts. There is such a degree of conflict as to preclude our rendering a decision either for or against either party. Feeling as we do about this matter we conclude that the only thing we can properly do, without arriving at a decision based, to a large degree, upon speculation, is to dismiss the instant claim without prejudice to either party.

AWARD