such a method there would be no inconsistency in the application of an award on this base even if it would be held applicable to such employe.

However, as previously stated, the Carrier holds that by agreement the employes waived any right to jurisdiction over the rates of pay applicable to employes covered by Rules 3(a) and 3(b) of the schedule, when, through negotiation as provided for in the Railway Labor Act, they specifically agreed that they were not subject to the rules governing rates of pay. In other words, the rates of pay, duties and responsibilities of such positions may be changed at will by management, the only restriction being that work of pmployes now fully covered by scedule rules may not be added to that of the incumbents of positions covered by Rules 3(a) and 3(b). Hence, it follows that as far as positions covered by Rules 3(a) and 3(b) are concerned, management was not obligated by agreement to make any change in their rates of pay by reason of the awards referred to herein, nor, having chosen to grant some increase as a matter of, equity as was done in tis case, is their any provision in the schedule which would prohibit management from rescinding such increase in whole or in part nor from adding to it at any time.

In this case, as in numerous others, we find the Employes before your Board trying to gain by Board award concessions they were unable to negotiate by due process as prescribed by the Railway Labor Act, or, to be specific, in this case, to extend the coverage of the rules relating to rates of pay to positions wich by agreement are not covered by such rules. The position of your Board in such cases has been expressed unequivocally on numerous occasions, as for instance in Award 456, wherein you state:

"If change in the agreement is desired, that result must be obtained in the prescribed manner and through the proper channels."

The Carrier holds that the words "(authority is co-extensive with the scope of agreements except where otherwise notes)" means exactly what it says. The wording is very plain "co-extensive with the scope of agreements except where otherwise noted." As previously cited, Webster defines "scope" as "range or field taken in, as, the scope of knowledge, scope of a book." Therefore, the awards were to be applied in accordance with the "range or field taken in" by the agreement and the agreement itself, by its own Drovisions excludes the positions covered by Rules 3(a) and 3() from the coverage of the rules governing rates of pay and there was, no exception filed by either employes or management which would have changed this condition. To the contrary, no exception was taken, thereby eliminating such positions from the application of the awards since they were not within "the scope of agreements" so far as rates of pay were concerned.

The Carrier therefore holds that it has clearly shown that the employes covered by Rules 3(a) and 3(b), the subject of this controversy, were not within the scope of the Agreement with the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes, insofar as rate, of pay are concerned; that no exception as provided for in the heading to Exhibits B of the respective awards was inserted by either party which would have brought them within such coverage and that, therefore. thev were not covered by the awards, leaving any increase allowed them by the Carrier a purely voluntary one governed solely by tie Carrier's sense of equity and that, therefore, the employes claim in this case can be construed only in the light of an attempt to have your Board write into their agreement something they were unable to negotiate and hence must be denied.

Exhibits not reproduced.

OPINION OF BOARD: On April 4, 1946, the Carrier and the Organization entered into an Agreement affecting a wage increase of sixteen cents per hour resulting from an award of an arbitration board. On May 22. 1946. a similar Agreement affecting a further wage increase of two and one-half cents per hour was executed. The wage increases were made "applieable to all Employes parties hereto." The notice served on the Carrier which instigated the wage dispute stated its purpose to be "to change rates of pay as hereinafter stated for all employes we represent" Under Exhibit "B" at-

tached to the Arbitration Agreement which was signed by the Carrier, the following appears:

"Authority is co-extensive with Scope of Agreements except where otherwise noted."

The Carrier now contends that employes coming within the provisions of Rules 3 (a) and 3 (b), current Agreement, same being employes excepted from rules governing hours of service, rates of pay and discipline, are not within the confronting Agreements providing for the pay increases of sixteen cents and two and one-half cents per hour respectively.

TMs question has previously been determined by this Division by its Award 3916. We adhere to that portion of that award which holds that the pay increases were applicable to all employes covered by the scope rule of the Agreement. Consequently, it applies to employes within the provisions of Rules 3 (a) and 3 (b).

The Agreement of April 4, 1946 provides that the sixteen cent rate increase shall be made effective as to monthly rated employes in the following manner:

"(d) Monthly rate 8-Determine the equivalent hourly rate by dividing the existing monthly rate by the number of hours comprehended by the monthly rate. Sixteen cents (160) per hour multiplied by the number of hours comprehended by the monthly rate shall be added to the existing monthly rate."

The Agreement of May 22, 1946, contained a similar provision.

In the present case, the Carrier increased the rates of pay of the occupants of the positions within Rules 3 (a) and 3 (b) by 181/z cents on the basis of 204 hours per month, substantially. The Carrier says this was done as a matter of fairness and not in compliance with the Wage Agreements which it continued to hold inapplicable. The correctness of the increase in view of our holding that the rate increases did apply to positions within Rules 3 (a) and 3 (b) depends upon the meaning of the words "the number of hours comprehended by the monthly rate." Certainly the words do not mean that the hours worked in a month are a fixed number, for if this had been intended, it would have been a very simple matter to have said so. We think the hours comprehended by the monthly rate are to be determined from the available evidence surrounding the position. If the monthly rate is set up by formula, the same formula should be applied in making the wage increase effective. If reports to outside agencies indicate the number of hours used in calculating a monthly salary, it is evidence to be considered. If the Carrier indicates the hours comprehended in paying for a partial month's employment, it is competent evidence of the fact. The number of hours actually worked, in the absence of any other yardstick, may be the controlling factor. We hold, therefore, that the Wage Agreements do not establish the hours of the month to be worked at any precise figure. The comprehended hours of the month are those which were contemplated by the parties in calculating the pay assigned to the position It is from the evidence and not the Agreements that this must be determined. No attempt has been made to present the evidence as to each employe with Rules 3 (a) and 3 (b). We hold, therefore. that such employes are within the Wage Agreements as claimed and that Sections 1, Article (d) of both Agreements, should be applied in the manner herein set forth.

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 the Agreements were violated.

AWARD