rolls covering truckmen, for one month in each year from 1922 up to the present time, which shows conclusively that the method of computation has been uniform from the date of the first agreement and to make any change in the method of computation other than as provided in above quoted rule requires negotiation under the provisions of Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act. For the reasons herein given, it is our position that the Board does not have jurisdiction in the claim as presented.

"The carrier Management is now and always has been entirely willing to confer with the Committee on the question of converting the monthly rates to a daily basis under the provisions of the rule herein before quoted."

OPINION OF BOARD: A careful examination of the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922 between the parties here in dispute, as well as of the Memorandum Agreement of January 25, 1922 and of the General Agreement effective February 1, 1922 between the Clerks' Organization and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, both of which latter agreements were made part of the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922 in their bearing upon the matter here at issue, supports the conclusion that the monthly minimum wage of $93.62 established for baggage and mail truckers on March 11, 1922, to be effective as of March 16, 1922, was designed to cover a month of 204 hours. A careful examination of the entire record further discloses that at no time subsequent to March 11, 1922 was there any express alteration, by agreement of the parties, of this basis for the application of the monthly wage, either as orginally established at $93.62, or as later increased, progressively, to $96.00 and to $108.17.

It appears, however, that throughout the period-that is, from March 16, 1922 to the present time-the appropriate monthly wage was uniformly applied by the carrier on the basis of full calendar months, rather than of 204 hours per month required by the Memorandum Agreement of March 11

1922, and that not until November 20, 1936, after more than 14 years had elapsed, did the employes protest the carrier's method of applying the monthly wage. These facts, coupled with the circumstance that the agreement negotiated between the parties in dispute on February 6, 1930, whereby the earlier increase in the monthly wage of these employes to $96.00 was incorporated in the agreement, did not deal with the matter at issue, as well as with the additional circumstance that the wage increase of August 1, 1937, couched in terms of cents per hour, was applied by the carrier to the monthly wage of these truckers on the basis of full calendar months and was accepted by the employes on this basis without protest or express reservation-all these facts and circumstances remove any just basis for the claim of the employes "for reimbursement for wage losses sustained" as a result of the violation of the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922. ,

It has been argued, indeed, that this course of conduct on the part of the employes supports the conclusion that the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922 must have contemplated the full-calendar-month basis for applying the monthly wage, since both parties accepted this basis of payment for so long a period of time. Much validity would attach to this contention if it were not for the fact that the evidence of record discloses that the carrier contributed very substantially to the laches of the employes. For most of the period here involved the carrier appears arbitrarily to have repudiated the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922. Not until August 13, 1937 did it recognize that agreement, and even then it did it by indirection-merely expressing its willingness "to consider the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad rules for Clerks, Freight Handlers Station and Storehouse employes, dated February 1, 1922 in effect." Since, of course, the only basis for this belated acknowledgment is to be found in the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922, the operative agreement bearing primarily upon the issue here involved was finally accorded recognition. These facts provide a large measure of extenuation for the failure

of the employes to press the specific claim as now submitted, and hence the course of their conduct cannot properly be held, not only to deprive them of wage losses for past violations, but to change the meaning of the operative agreement in connection with its future application.

Under all these circumstances the equities of the situation will be fully met if, subsequent to the date of this award, the interpretation herein placed upon the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922 will be controlling, and will be applicable to the monthly wage rates now in effect, without reparation for violations prior to that date.

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 the Memorandum Agreement of March 11, 1922 requires that the monthly wage rates be applied on the basis of 204 hours per month, but that the evidence of record does not justify an award of reparation for past violations.

AWARD