that this agreement shall not apply to Stewards on dining cars operating in through service between San Antonio, Texas, and points in Mexico.' (Underscoring ours.)

"It will be observed that the rule specifically excludes from the provisions thereof Stewards on dining cars operating in through service between San Antonio, Texas, and points in Mexico. The contentions of the Employes in this case are to, in effect, require the placing of Dining Car Stewards on extra dining cars between San Antonio and Mexico City, notwithstanding the fact that the rules of the wage agreement under which they are prosecuting their case specifically exempts such a situation.

"At the time this schedule was negotiated, a question arose with respect to the rates of pay and seniority of such Stewards as were on dining cars operating in through service between San Antonio and points in Mexico, and this was taken care of in a Supplemental understanding expressed in letter marked as Carrier's Exhibit 'A' reading in part:

rg! points in Mexico that are specifically excluded from the proposed wage agreement under Scope Rule 1: it is understood that stewards assigned to this service shall be considered as "exempted" in applying Rule 9-(b) of the proposed agreement; further, that stewards so assigned on dining cars operating in through service between San Antonio, Texas, and points in Mexico will be governed by the hours of service as proposed in this agreement.'

'(b). Stewards accepting or now holding official or "excepted" positions with the carrier or organization shall retain and continue to accumulate seniority.'

"In the prosecution of this case with the Carrier the Employes have cited no rule violation of the schedule, obviously for the reason there has been none, as neither of the only two rules in the schedule made applicable by special understanding to Dining Car Stewards operating on the run in question have any bearing whatsoever in the instant case.

"In view of the fact that there has been no rule violation, no infringement upon the agreement rights of Dining Car Stewards in using a 'waiterin-charge' in this instance, the Employes' claim should be denied."

There is in existence an agreement between the parties bearing effective date of October 1, 1936.

OPINION OF BOARD: The scope rule of the Agreement, effective October 1, 1936, which governs the rates of pay, hours of service, and working conditions of dining car stewards on this property, expressly excepts "stewards on dining cars operated in through service between San Antonio, Texas, and points in Mexico." Since the extra diner here involved was operated in through service between San Antonio and Mexico City, the service at issue would, under this scope rule, be entirely exempt from the provisions of the Agreement. The only support, if any, for this protest, therefore, must be found in the supplementary understanding of September 18, 1936 with respect to such service. This understanding specifies that "stewards assigned to this service" will retain and continue to accumulate seniority (as in case of other "excepted" positions under Rule 9 (b) ), and that "stewards so assigned" will be governed by the rates of pay (Rule 2) and the hours of service (Rule 3) of the Agreement. It is unequivocally clear that these are the only respects in which the complete removal of such stewards from the provisions of the Agreement is modified; and it is to be noted, further, that even these rules are made applicable

only to stewards actually assigned on dining cars operating in through service between San Antonio and points in Mexico. This proceeding involves no question as to accumulation of seniority, rates of pay, or hours of service, and such obligation as may rest upon the carrier to use stewards is obviously not applicable to dining cars operating, as in this case, between San Antonio and Mexico City. Under these circumstances no validity can be found to attach to this protest.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That no just or sound basis for the protest can be found either in the Agreement or in the supplementary understanding of the parties.

AWARD