Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD AIUUSTMENT BOARD Award No. (492
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 63.

 2-SCL-CM-'73



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:
 1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated the agree
 ments, particularly the agreement of January 9, 1969 which be
 came effective- on the date of the next general wage increases
 (January 1, 1969), thereby depriving all employees of the company
 who are represented by the Brotherhood. Railway Carmen of the
 United States and Canada who receive the rate of pay applicable
 to repairs of freight cars of one (1) cent per hour.
 2. That accordingly, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be
 ordered to compensate all Carmen who received the rate of pay
 applicable to freight car repairs one (1) cent per hour for
 straight time hours and one and one-half (12) cents per hour f
 for all overtime hours worked from January 1, 1969 until the
 proper rate is applied. ; L

 Findings: j
 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole. record and all
 the evidence, finds that: t
 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dis
 pute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor '
 Act as approved June 21, 1934.
 i
 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
 involved herein.
 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
 The organization set forth in its submission that in 1964, the Organizaticn
 agreed with the Carrier upon a wage increase of 9¢ per hour effective each year on
 January 1, of 1964, 1965, 1966. In 1965, the Carrier agreed with Sheet Metal WorXers,
 Electrical Workers and Machinists upon a wage increase of 9¢ per hour effective
 January 1, 1964, 4% for all but helpers and apprentices effective January 1, 1965,
 311% for the same group effective January 1, 1966. In 1969, the Organization reache3
 agreement with the Carrier that effective with the next general wage increase, the
 increases of the emuloyes represented by the organization would be adjusted to
 correspond to the increases of the other shop crafts whose wage increases had been
 cxpressed.by the percentages stated above instead of cents per hour. In April 1970,
 the present parties agreed upon wage increases for a new contract to start January 1,
 1969, with the provision that the base pay before the new increases would be added,
 Form 1 Award No. 64o(
 Page 2 Docket No. 6300
 2-SCL-CM-173
 would be the adjustment agreed upon in 1969.

 The Carrier agrees with the organization's statement only to the extent that it has set forth the agreements for wage increases. The Carrier does not agree with the way the Organization in its calculations arrived at the adjusted base rate for the increase to be effective January 1, 1969. On Page 9, of the Carrier's submission, it claims that by agreement with the Sheet Metal, Electrical and Machinists crafts, in their calculation of increases, fractions . were extended to a rounded out figure. The Carrier claims that this was not included in the agreement reached with the petitioner in adjusting the base
 rate for 1969. This accounted for a difference of one cent per hour between,
 the Organization's rate and that of the Sheet Metal Workers, Electricians and
 Machinists.

 The basis of the dispute between the parties revolves around the manner in which the Carrier arrived at the final pay rate for the Sheet Metal, Electrical and Machinists crafts. The record does not disclose that the same method of calculation was intended or agreed upon with the Carmen's Organization.
 It appears that the Carrier did adjust the carmen's rates as agreed. Absent j
 evidence in the record, of agreement or intention to do something more or that
 the increases or the rates of all crafts were to be identical, we would be adding . I
 to the facts. Third Division Award No. 15547, dismissed a claim for the reason
 that: "We know of no principles---. We are faced with a factual issue: That was
the intent of the parties? We are unable to make a finding as to intent because of lacy of evidence in the record. .Consequently, we must dismiss the Claim."

 This Board does not have jurisdiction over the negotiation of Agreements or the authority to order changes in agreements or to fix rates.

                          A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.

                                                              I


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:

                                                              Executive Secretary i


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of May, 1973.

i

i