for the work performed by them on December 25-26, 1955, The organization's claim that the positions of Electricians F. Greenley, et al., were improperly abolished and that they are entitled to additional compensation for the period in question is without merit and 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 the dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The question to be decided by this Board is whether or not the carrier properly applied Article IV of the Agreement of November 2, 1954, when it abolished the positions of these claimants on December 24, 1955.

Article IV deals specifically with situations where work ceases to exist because of emergency situations including floods. That was the situation in December of 1955 that caused the Southern Pacific Company to annul certain of its trains.

The Oakland Southern Pacific Coach Yard at Oakland, California, was not under water due to the flood but the Southern Pacific did annul trains No. 12, 20, 28 and 102 and the work to be performed on the cars of these trains was affected by the flood.

Article IV is a qualification of Rule 23. When Article IV has application, the carrier does not have to give its employes the three day notice required under Rule 23, before it can abolish a position; when the service of the employes are no longer needed because the work the employs normally perform has ceased to exist.

There was evidence introduced by the employes and admitted by the carrier that train No. 12 left the Oakland Yard at 5:05 P.M. on December 26, 1955. This, the employes state showed that all the work of the claimant's position did not cease to exist during the time these positions were abolished.

The carrier states that the claimant's work on the equipment is performed at the time of the departure of the train. The employe states that the important work of the claimants is performed at the time of the arrival of the trains. There is a conflict in the evidence as to when the inspection work of these claimants is performed. However, there was no evidence submitted by the claimants that any work of these claimants was performed on Train No. 12 on December 26, 1955, therefore, this claim will be denied.

AWARD