ments and the right of employes subject to the scope and operations of the rules of each agreement to perform the work covered by their collective agreements with the Carriers. The Carrier feels that nothing is to be gained toward the settlement of this dispute in the matter of a detailed statement by the Carrier of the points involved in each of these awards. However, the rules governing the working conditions of clerical employes and employes excepted from the rules for clerical employes are not the same on all of the railroads of the United States. An examination of the various awards of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board will show that not only are different rules in effect than on other railroads, but also that various side agreements have been consummated by the Clerks' Organization on and with individual railroads, covering phases of the working conditions which were not originally covered in the working Agreement as written. One should not accept an award on some particular point at issue which originated on a railroad which did not have the same rules as some other railroad on which a similar dispute has arisen. This is no doubt the situation which one would find in a careful examination of the Agreements with the various railroads which are involved in the awards which the Organization is now citing to support its contention in the instant dispute.

"(1) When position No. 500 was abolished at Shopton no work remained from that position to be performed by or distributed to other employes.

"(2) There is no rule in the agreement, no precedent, and no practice which prohibits the abolition of a clerical position when, in the judgment of the carrier, such abolition is necessary from the standpoint of a substantial decrease in the duties of an individual position, or a substantial decrease in the amount of work in a given office which would justify the abolition of a position and the redistribution of work in that office.

"(3) That it would be impossible for the Board to hand down an award in the face of the conflict between the statements of the Carrier and the Organization as to the fundamental points at issue.

"(4) That this claim was obviously submitted and prosecuted by the Organization, not on the basis of any rule, practice, or precedent, but in order to saddle the carrier with unneeded jobs and unnecessary expense."

OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization concedes that, under the stipulation of the parties dated July 17, 1940, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the claim. It asks, however, that the claim be dismissed rather than denied. The request is based upon the refusal of the Carrier to cooperate in making a timely check of the records. This complaint is well grounded. Until the suggestion was made, at the hearing before this Board, that a joint check be made the Carrier took the stand that the position hd been abolished and that, therefore, there was no occasion to go into the records. In taking this stand the Carrier was in the wrong. A timely check of the records might have disclosed facts which the parties were unable to ascertain at the time the check was made in July 1941. See Award 1586.

Notwithstanding these considerations, however, we think that, under the universal practice of the Board in entering Findings upon which its awards are based, the decision in this case should take the usual course.

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;

AWARD