DISPUTE.-" Claim of employees that the carrier does not have the right under Rule 51 to reduce the number of work days from six to live days per week prior to first laying off junior men."
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carriers and the employees involved in this dispute are respectively carriers and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board bas jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Tire parties to said dispufe were given due notice of hearing thereon.An Agreement is shown to exist between tire parties governing the hours of service and working conditions of employees therein designated, from which Agreement complainant party cites, among others, the following Rules 4 and 51, to wit:
"ROrn 4. Reduc ion in force.-In tire reduction of forces same will be elude in reverse order of seniority, except where the junior employe has exceptional experience, ability, merit, or fitness sufficient to warrant his retention in tire service in preference to a senior employe, the employing officer to be (lie .judge, subject to appeal."
"Rvrr: 57. Reductions ro decrease cypem.se.-Gangs will not be laid Off for short poriods whoa proper reduction of expenses can be accomplished by first laying off the junior men. This will not operate against men in the same gang dividing time."
In the judgment of tire Third Division, Rule 51 is clear, and it is in evidence that when invoking tire provisions of Rule 51 the Car'rier's relne,'entatives have, in order io promote common understanding, pursued a policy of conferring with representatives of tire employees to be affected thereby.
The specific "claim" which goes to the "rights" of tire parties under Rule 61 is remanded for adjushnent between them per said Rule, and err the basis of the findings upon which this Award is predicated. By Order of Third Divioion: