agreement on September 1, 1927. If such practices had been directly abrogated in the current agreement, this argument could readily be sustained. But the failure of the parties to deal directly with these practices in subsequent agreements and their recognition by the parties for more than fifteen years after the negotiation of the last collective agreement furnishes convincing proof that their abrogation was never intended. See Award 1435. The conduct of the parties to a contract is often just as expressive of intention as the written word and where uncertainty exists, the mutual interpretation given it by the parties as evidenced by their action with reference thereto, affords a safe guide in determining what the parties themselves had in mind when the contract was made."

In Award 4104 Referee Parker held in part as follows:

"One of these rules, now so well established by Awards of this Division as to almost preclude necessity for their citation, is that when a collective bargaining contract is negotiated and existing practices are not abrogated or changed by its terms such practices are just as enforceable as if they had been expressly authorized by the terms of the instrument itself. See Awards 2436, 1435 and 1397."

The Carrier argues that the Board take into consideration that there is another party interested. That other party is the waiter-in-charge. He had an agreement with this Carrier prior to the time the steward had an agreement. Prior to either of the agreements there were both stewards and waitersin-charge working on this property in the same manner as the operation was conducted on trains 25 and 26 effective with the change on October 15, 1945.

The Carrier also points to the fact that there was a new agreement entered into with the Stewards, as shown by its Statement of Facts, on March 1, 1948, which was subsequent to the date of this occurrence; i:e:. October 15, 1945, and there was no change made in the agreement with reference to the duties of a steward or when or where or under what conditions a steward would be employed. The Employes knew when they entered into the first agreement in 1936, and they have known since that date, that waiters-incharge have been assigned in dining service at many points on the system, and particularly in the territory where this dispute arose, and revere before has there been any protest made.

Claim should be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This is a companion case to Award 4720. The same Agreement is inolved, although the International-Great Northern Railroad is the respondent Carrier here. The facts involved are essentially the same, except with respect to the trains and runs concerned. The principles and reasoning set forth in our Opinion in the above-mentioned award are applicable here. Accordingly, the claim will be sustained.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing thereon;

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 Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD