ings made, are not in violation of the classification of work rule of the Electricians' Agreement."

The carrier submits that on this property it has always retained the right to determine whether or not any unserviceable item should be repaired or scrapped. It has never conceded to any organization including the organizations represented by System Federation No. 12 that it is obligated to permit the employes covered by that agreement to repair an unservicable item merely because it is repairable. It has never conceded that it is in any way restricted by agreement to the extent that it is prohibited from purchasing replacement parts in lieu of repairing unserviceable parts. This is true whether the part is a single isolated piece, or an entire piece of equipment, or air conditioning equipment such as is involved in this case.

The claim here before this Board is in reality an attempt on the part of the organization to secure through an Award of this Board what they have never secured, and in fact never asked for in negotiations on the property, that is, a rule which deprives the carrier of the right to determine whether or not its equipment should be repaired.

The carrier submits that this claim must of necessity be denied in its entirety.

While as the carrier has indicated, it does not believe there is any basis for a sustaining award in this case, and certainly there has been no showing that the agreement between this carrier and System Federation No. 12 has in any way been violated, the carrier wishes to point out that even if it is assumed that there is any basis for the claim here before the Board the claim as presented is not proper. The claim as presented to the carrier apparently was on behalf of certain employes that they be compensated "224 hours", "320 hours" and "344 hours". The carrier has never been informed as to the basis for the claim for these hours. Admittedly the employes did not perform the work for which they claim additional compensation.

There has been no showing during the course of handling of this case on the property that had the carrier elected to repair the air conditioning equipment instead of disposing of it that all of the claimants would have been utilized. In other words, the carrier does not believe the Board is justified even if it assumes the claim has merit, in sustaining the claim as presented simply because it was presented when there is a complete lack of any evidence to show the "loss" on which the claim was based.

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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

AWARD