than they would have thought to deny their own existence. Quite to the contrary, they themselves directed attention to the practice, and they acknowledged its full breadth. They asked that the Company agree to abolish the practice in its entirety, and repeatedly thereafter, in negotiations respecting the formation or change of the agreement they asked the Company to agree to give up the right to assign runs to porters in charge. Each time at the end of the negotiations they have receded from that extreme position and have accepted a contract not containing the drastic amendments which they had themselves proposed as necessary to abolish the porter-in-charge practice. The conductors now attack each exercise of the practice. They attack it before the Board, and they attack it publicly outside the processes of the Act. Their obvious philosophy, of course, is that if they can defeat each exercise of the practice they wili in the end have defeated the pratice itself. In pursuing this method they are asking this Board to accomplish for them by a construction of the contract what they have insisted for almost 20 years could be accomplished only by amending the contract. They ask the Board to write into the contract now the amendments which, after full consideration, were not written into the contract by the parties. We ask the Board to give the agreement the interpretation which this record shows has always been placed upon it by the conductors themselves, and in so doing to dismiss this complaint.

"The conductors' organization by this proceeding, is requesting that the Board write into the contract now, by construction, the very amendments which, after full consideration and negotiation, were not written into the contract by the parties. Knowing however, that the terms of the contract and the record of the organizations position in the negotiations of that contract are such that it cannot seek a final adjudication upon the construction of the contract, a third step has now been taken. The conductors are now seeking legislation in the Federal Congress (H. R. 9406, introduced April 16th, 1940; S. 3798, introduced April 17th, 1940), to accomplish by that legisation what was first sought by amendment to the working agreements, and latterly before this Board, by construction of the contract. This resort to legislation is the clearest evidence that the conductors know that the limitations which they desire to place upon the porter-in-charge practice are not to be found in the present contract.

"Never before, we believe, has any organization asked this Board for a ruling which the organization has itself made impossible by such a record as that presented here. We ask the Board to give the agreement the interpretation which the record in this case shows has been placed upon it by the conductors themselves.

"The action of The Pullman Company involved in the present claim is embraced within the practice described. For the reasons stated herein, which show there has been no violation of any rules of the Agreement between The Pullman Company and its Conductors, the claim filed in this proceeding is without merit, and should be denied."

OPINION OF BOARD: The principles involved in this claim in respect to the right of the Pullman Company to change from a conductor operated line to a porter-in-charge line are identical with the principles in Docket PC-854, Award 1461. That award is controlling in this case. We shall consider the record and the showing made in the light of the statement made in Award 779. We quote from that award:

Prior to February 16, 1939, Conductor Montgomery, Norfolk District, was assigned on line 2291 operating from Roanoke, Va., to Winston Salem, N. C., and return; effective that date a porter was put in his place. The operation involved in this claim is confined to Norfolk & Western Railway trains Nos. 21 and 22. It concerns that part of sleeping car line No. 2291, which operates between Roanoke and Winston Salem. The question with which we are confronted is whether the Pullman Company violated the rules by using porter-in-charge between Roanoke and Winston Salem. One sleeping car is operated on this line in each direction. The train leaves Roanoke at 10:10 A. M., and arrives at Winston Salem at 2:05 P. M. It leaves Winston Salem at 2:35 P. M., and arrives back at Roanoke at 6:15 P. M. The distance is 122 miles in each direction. The record shows a steady and material decline in the traffic. It is a one car operation. There are comparable lines shown in the record. The carrier has met the burden of showing the reasons that justify the change.

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 employe involved in this dispute are respectively. carrier and employe 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

AWARD