extra hours, then a showing of public necessity would be required. The question of public interest, being contrary to contract provisions, is not here involved."

The carrier has shown that watering passenger cars is not the exclusive work of any craft on this property, that it is performed by various crafts at different points, and that it is its right and duty to regulate its affairs except insofar as it has restricted itself by agreement.

Claims must 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.

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

The claim is that the Carrier has unilaterally assigned to other than car cleaners the watering of passenger cars in the westbound and eastbound California Zephyrs, which stop at Salt Lake City fifteen and twenty minutes, respectively.

But the only evidence of the assigning of any passenger car watering to coach cleaners is the carrier's unilateral "Piece Work Schedule Covering Cleaning, Icing and Watering Passenger Train Cars," dated July 15, 1927, showing six cents as the pay for watering a car, and its unilateral revision dated March 30, 1932, showing the same rate, with a twelve cents or seventeen cents rate for the complete draining, cleaning and filling of water systems on certain cars.

The first agreement relating to it was a Memorandum of Agreement dated 9/7/40 which specified that as of 9/16/40 "the present practice of compensating coach cleaners at Burnham and Salt Lake on a piece work basis will be discontinued and thereafter all employes designated as coach cleaners on the System will be paid an hourly rate," subject to the Carrier's unilateral right to revert to the piece work basis at the end of one year.

The Agreement includes coach cleaners but does not specify their duties. Thus the only evidence of the assignment of passenger car watering to coach cleaners was by the Carrier's unilateral action and does not show that coach cleaners ever had the exclusive right to water all passenger cars.

On the contrary, the record shows that the watering of passenger cars on the system has always been performed by other crafts incidental to their other duties, and only at Salt Lake City does the evidence indicate that coach cleaners ever did passenger car watering not incidental to general coach cleaning work. Consequently, although apparently the enroute watering of the California Zephyrs had habitually been performed at Salt Lake City by coach cleaners, we cannot conclude that they have the exclusive right to perform i4- Car watering incidental to general coach cleaning is not here involved.

AWARD