but more important is that such shipments are usually consigned to meet a certain market and if late in arriving and loss results therefrom, carrier would be liable; and the fact that it helps to alleviate any car shortage or to prevent one from coming into being." (Emphasis added.)

Here, again, was a situation which is similar in many respects to that involved in the present case. It was necessary for the carrier to make repairs to cars on Sunday in order to avoid holding those cars in its yards over the week-end. The Board held that prevention of delay to cars, more satisfactory service to shippers, avoidance of possible damage to the contents of the cars, and alleviation of a car shortage constitute "necessity" within the meaning of the rule in the forty hour week agreement.

The situation at Memphis is similar to those involved in the above claims, all of which have been denied for the simple reason they were not supported by the agreement. The instant claim should be denied for the same reason.

Claim being barred and not having been handled as required by agreement rules, the Railway Labor Act, and Board Rules of Procedure, the Board should dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. However, if for some unforeseen reason, the Board should assume jurisdiction, it cannot do other than make a denial award.

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.

Complaint is made that carrier improperly established a seven (7) day operation on repair track, car department, Memphis, Tennessee. Carrier points out a procedural defect which we deem of sufficient importance to consider in the interest of placing the primary burden of resolving disputes where it belongs-upon the parties.

It is undisputed that the earlier steps in processing the written grievances were taken. It is of importance to note that these steps were evidenced by a series of letters between the parties as contemplated by the Shop Crafts' Agreement. However, while the rules and statute contemplate final appeal upon the property to '.,he highest officer designated by the carrier to handle such disputes, here, the Assistant Director of Labor Relations, proper proof is lacking of compliance with such required step. The alleged omission is put in issue by the carrier in its initial submission.

The organization in its rebuttal submission meets this issue by attaching three (3) letter exhibits signed by general chairmen who presumably were in attendance when final discussions allegedly took place. These letters simply state that reference has been made to the particular writer's diary and brief note was therein contained of the fact of conference respecting 'the instant

dispute. The carrier responded to such assertions by setting forth what purports to be its representative's verbatim note to the effect mention was not made in conference of the within subject.

It seems unusual that in a dispute of this magnitude written evidence of appeal and disposition are lacking as is the case in. connection with the earlier steps. The least that could be expected would be the submission of photo copies of the alleged diary notes. Without such we are left with bare assertions that brief discussion took place, at most, with a perfunctory effort to discharge an important responsibility. We do not feel compelled to entertain jurisdiction upon such scanty showing of efforts to settle a dispute. The burden being upon the organization to seek out such proper conference, we must dismiss the claims for failure to assume such burden.

AWARD