"1. That under the current agreement the Carrier improperly contracted out the rewinding of 22 traction motor armatures during the period of Oct. 2 to and including Oct. 29, 1958, to be performed by employes of contractors not subject to the current agreement.
"2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate the following named claimants at penalty rate, for the number of hours required to perform the above mentioned work according to electric shop records:
The inherent right of management to manage must permit managing officers to choose between available methods of furthering the purpose of the carrier. If such method is one ordinarily pursued by management in the industry, it should be considered as a proper exercise of managerial judgment. In the instant case, it was the carrier's judgment that the proper and sensible thing to do was to take advantage of the unit exchange service offered by the manufacturer and secure from them complete, modernized, upgraded, and warranted armatures rather than attempt to repair or rebuild worn and antiquated ones in kind which would not give us the advantage of renianufactured, modernized, converted and warranted armatures.
As previously stated, the receipt of the remanufactured, modernized, improved, upgraded and warranted armatures received on unit exchange purchase orders for older armatures bears more resemblance to the purchase of new ones than to the maintenance and rebuilding of old armatures.
We submit, without relinquishing our position as above, that, even if claim had merit, which we deny, there is no showing of loss or damage to any individual. It is also our position, as upheld by this and other Divisions of the Adjustment Board, that there can be no penalty, much less at time and one-half rate, for work not performed.
The employes' organization in this case is in agreement with the carrier's statement that these armatures were sent to the above companies on a unit exchange basis, as per third paragraph of the gen. chairman's letter of Nov. 14, 1959, reading:
The carrier and employes, therefore, are in agreement that these armatures were handled on a unit exchange basis and, therefore, this same question and same type of case from this property has been before your Board on previous occasions for hearing in Awards 3228, 3229, 3230, 3231., 3232 and 3233 (Referee Ferguson) and 3269 (Referee Hornbeck), all of which were rendered in favor of this carrier. Further, Awards 2377, 2922, 3158, 3184 and 3185 have also upheld carriers in similar cases.
On basis of the facts and circumstances recited in the foregoing, we contend there was no violation of the employes' agreement.
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.
This claim is between the same parties and involves the same agreement and similar facts as considered in Award 3788, so like award should follow. 3793--6 474