Form 1
(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. CVC,
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No* 6332
 2-SCL-C*-' ?3

 The Second Divis4.on, consisted-of the regnltr.sabers and: in addition Referee.'.Irsing x. Shapiro-when awaxd. rtes rendered.

 _Systes Federi,tiarr Rio. 42, Ra -ileay Employee!
 y . :' lh3partmant, .A _, F. of L. - , C. :I. 0.

 Parties to Dis,gptei '{: `_ .- (.Grnen_)
::S~aboard "Coast .Line Railroad Coupany.: -

 Dispute: 1, dials. of E4 m, -1 ni:


not authozied bjr:,_the current agreement.

-. 2: .. That 'accordingly,,_, the Carrier. be..ordered-. to restore.: all shifts on

`; tha_ eight . ( $yj consecutive hour ba sia, including: a-11or,rance of v,.20

minutes fax,~lunch, Which existed -,prior to-- March, .29,..,19aI:-. v;


Fi n~ s

 The _rSecQnd_ Diyision..of · the Adjpstraent Board,,, upon the whole record and

 all the ~evidende'sfinds :ihat--_ _

 The'"carrier' or~carriers sand the,em ploye ,or. eaiployea involved in this:

 dispute ar_ e_ itspectyeiy carrfer"arid ~ploye,Withinthe me:rung: of.-t1e . Rs flaay v

 Ubor Act' ais.,approwed' June. 2I; .,1;934, , . _ . : ..., ..

 Tftis "Divisioii-~of tie Adjustrrent.Board has -jurisdiction overthe dispute

 involved,- herein*.' - ., . . -. _ _. .

 ``- Pat~ties to" said dispute waived ~iiglit ~ ot appearance athearing . thereon.


This'i~ecord-`contazris a number ^of unclarified Yquestions 7of,, fact, . To. ·the extent possible, we have adduced the following to be the facts; `Prior to March 29, 1971, employees assigned to worms-at the =Carrier's Florence, South Carolina Repair Track were on a two-shift operation established in May:1967,with starting times, First Shift 7;00 A.M. and Second Shift 3:00 P.M. and quitting times 3:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. respectively. A twenty.to,inute paid lunch period was provided the employee invchvect.'v~ 'On March 29, .1971-, Carrier changed the shift hours as follows: First Shift 7:00 A.M-.' to 3:30 P.M., and-Second Shift 3:3G P.M. to 12 Midnight. A one-half hour unpaid lunch period approximately midpoint in each shift was

 provided.

 Petitioner claims the change was violative of: Ru1-e 2 of the Controlling Agreement between the parties. Carrier avers that its action was consistent with
 its rights under Rule 2(a) and 2.(b) of the agreement. ,. . , ,
 Form 1
 Page 2

 Award No. 64ao

Docket No. 6332

2-SCL-CM-'73


Carrier relies on the fact that the pre-March 29, 1971 schedule was instituted by it in 1967, and without the employes or their organization entering into a mutual agreement with reference thereto, to support its right to make changes in the shift times. It contests the invoking of Rule 2(c) by the Petitioner as not applicable because the particular operation is worked on two, not three shifts. Rule 2(b), according to the Cagier, affords it the right to set up the shift hours and requires only mutual agreement to the time and length of the lunch period. The Organization refused to participate in a discussion of this factor and the Carrier therefore proceeded to establish the lunch period consistent with the underlying concept of the Rule relative thereto.

 Essentially the question is whether the Carrier may, unilaterally, make a material change in conditions of employment which it had established approximately four years prior. That those conditions were not the result of a mutual agreement does not appear to afford to Carrier the right to make revisions at will. It- is fundamental that "silence gives consent" end the failure of the employes to protest the 1967 change can be construed as their agreement thereto. By its own action, Carrier instituted the standards for a three shift operation for the operation involved and this became the established accepted practice.

 Implicit in Rule 2 is the requirement that changes in shift hours, lunch periods, and related matters would be by mutual agreement. It is basic that the organization may not arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold its agreement to a change. Carrier asserts that the change was made to meet its
 operational needs. However, it presents nothing in the form of probative evidence
 to support this allegation and we have consistently held that "saying so does not
 make it so". We are in no position, based upon this record, to hold that the
 Organization's refusal to agree to the changes introduced by the Carrier was
 arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. It is quite evident that the cited Rules
 seek to limit changes in work schedules of employes. If Carrier's view were
 sustained, it could unilaterally revise hours of work at will at any time and
 as many times as it is wished with or without reasons. This. is not consonant with
 the spirit of the Rules.
 A W A R D .

 Claim sustained.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April, 1973.