Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJfSTNENT BOARD Award No. 839+
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7791-I
 2-CR-I-'80
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
 J. B,~Goclawski, et, al,, Petitioners

 Parties to Dispute:



Dispute: Claim of Employee:


Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employer or employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Tabor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Prior to November 1,3, 1972 the Claimants in this case were employed by the Carrier but assigned to a facility known as the Eastbound Repair Shop, located at Altoona., Pa. At some point in time prior to that date, the Carrier had decided to alter its operations, such decision affecting the aforementioned Shop as well as other facilities. Discussions were held with the Transport Workers Union of America (hereafter, Organization), which is the authorized representative of the Claimants as well as other employees in the class and craft. As a result of such discussions, an Agreement was reached which set out the Carrier's planned. action and the parties' (Carrier and Organization) agreed-upon placement of the employees who would be affected:


Form l Award No. 839+
 Page 2 Docket No, 7791-I '
 2-CR-I-'80
 "WHEREAS, this action will result in a surplus of approximately
 20 carmen on the involved seniority roster; and
 WHEREAS, the Company, on or after November 13, 1972 intends to
 utilize the said Eastbound Repair facility for programmed car
 repair work under the jurisdiction of the Altoona Heavy Repair
 Shops.
 THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED:



The document was executed by duly authorized representatives of the Carrier and
 by the President of Local 2017 of the organization as well as the Vice President
 Director of the Organization's Railroad Division.
 The Agreement essentially provided the opportunity for the employees affected
 by the Carrier's November 13, 1972, action -- including the Claimants -- to file ,_fir
 for positions at the "Altoona Heavy Repair Shop" which, according to the Carrier,
 would be located in the same facility as did the former Eastbound Repair Shop,
 but would perform substantially different work. The Claimants chose not to
 accept such positions; as scheduled, the Claimant's former jobs were abolished
 and identical jobs were established at the "Westbound Car Shop", to which they
 successfully bid; their seniority was to be established in the Seniority District
 for that facility.
 The Claimants' brought legal action against both the Carrier and organization
 contending, inter olio, they were without authority under the terms of the collective
 bargaining agreement to consummate the November 1, 1972 Agreement as they did.
 By Opinion dated December 30, 1977, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the
 United States affirmed a lower court's judgment that the question of whether or
 not the parties had authority to make the November 1, 1972 Agreement was a "minor
 dispute" as defined by the Railway Labor Act and, thus, was a subject properly
 resolved through the dispute resolution mechanism of that Act. Consequently,
 this matter is brought before this Board.
 Essentially, the Claimants assert that the parties to the November 1,
 1972 Agreement lacked contractual authority to execute such an agreement. The
 Carrier points to Rule 3-B-2, which was part of the collective bargaining agree
 ment, dated November 1, 1970, and in effect at the time of the events germane
 to this dispute for support in its contention that the Agreement was properly
 executed:
 "No changes ox' modifications shall be made in existing
 seniority districts of a craft or class, nor shall any
 Form 1 Award No, 839+
 Page 3 Docket No. 7791-I
 2-CR-I-'80
 "roster be combined or divided unless otherwise agreed to,
 in writing, between the Director-Labor Relations and the
 Director of Railroad Division. Where the limits of a
 Division axe changed, seniority districts and rosters of
 the employes affected shall. be adjusted by agreement, in
 writing, between the :Director-Labor Relations and the
 Director of Railroad Division."

 The Claimants contend that any such change or modification requires the participation of other kcal organization officials and, historically, has been voted on by the affected membership. In response to this claim, the Carrier brings attention to the provisions of this same Rule as it existed prior to July 19+9, when the current Rule, as set out hereinbefore, was modified to its current status

It is a well established principle, long adhered to by this Board, that except where a provision of the collective bargaining agreement is unclear or ambiguous, or where it can be demonstrated that a long established past practice has prevailed in the absence of such contractual language, then a contract provision is deemed controlling. Here, Rule 3-B-2 is given to no other reasonable interpretation than that the "Director-Labor Relations" (for the Carrier) and the "Director of Railroad Division" (for the Organization) have been empowered to act as agents for the Carrier and represented employees, whose relationship is controlled by the collective bargaining agreement. This conclusion is strengthened when the provisions of the former 'Rule 3-B-2 are considered; it is this earlier version upon which the Claimants predicate one of their contentions, i.e. that the parties to the November 1, 1972 Agreement were obliged to place the matter -as a proposal -- before the employees who would be affected by its execution. The fact that Rule 3-8-2 was in effect on November 1, 1972 empowering, as it did, the individuals heretofore mentioned to make such agreement, leads to the obvious conclusion that the membership of the organization agreed to alter the Rule to forego the vote "by 66 2/3% of the class in each seniority district affected" in favor of permitting its representative to consummate any such change.

 While the scope of the claim set forth in this matter as a whole is extensive, the threshold question before this Board is whether or not the parties to the Agreement were within the authority available to them under the Agreement effect the November 1, 1972 Agreement. If this Board determines in the affirmative on that point, then any further questions are made moot. We are satisfied that the parties were so empowered and that consideration of other aspects of this dispute by this Board is inappropriate.
 Form 1 Award No. 839+
 Page 4 Docket No, 7791-I
 2-CR-I-'80




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By'
      o marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated t Chicago, 17.l.inois, this 23rd day of July, 1980.