to applies if a conductor was assigned from Philadelphia to Chicago, and was changed enroute to go to St. Louis. He could go on to S. Louis. That is what I think that applies to and I don't believe it would apply to Conductor Carr in this case because he was assigned at Miami and succeeded in getting to Washington before there was any change in the operation of his train. Then Washington re-assigned him. There was evidence of that. Mr. Laux met him and told him to go to New York. There is where our claim begins."

Management submits that the Organization's contention is based upon an improper reading of Rule 38 (b). In essence the Organization contends that Management is privileged under Rule 38 (b) to change an extra conductor's assignment only while he is en route. Since Carr had arrived at his original destination, the Organization argues, the change of destination to New York City was not a change of destination while the conductor was en route. This position is clearly contrary to Rule 38 (b). The Rule provides for a change in the destination of a conductor's assignment when the destination of the train, rather than the destination of the conductor, is changed en route. Thus, inasmuch as the destination of train No. 88 was changed while the train was en route, the mere fact that Conductor Carr had arrived at the destination of the assignment given him at Miami on February 6 did not preclude Management from extending his assignment.

The claim involving the assignment of Philadelphia District Conductor R. H. Shaughnessy from Pittsburgh to Perrysville on August 2, 1946, cited by the Organization's representative at page 7 of Exhibit A, is not in point. In that claim Pittsburgh District extra conductors were available in Pittsburgh on August 2, 1946, when Conductor Shaughnessy was assigned. Thus, the assignment of Conductor Shaughnessy was not an emergency assignment . Management, therefore, was privileged under Rules 38 (a) and (e) to withhold the work in question from Pitsburgh District extra conductors only insofar as that work could be used to return Philadelphia District Conductor Shaughnessy to Philadelphia in service moving on a direct route toward his home station. Further, no question of a change in the destination of Conductor Shaughnessy's train was involved. Clearly, the claim in connection with the operation of Conductor Shaughnessy is not factually similar to the instant dispute. Therefore, it has no precedent value as far as the claim in behalf of Conductor Simmermon is concerned.

In view of these facts Management submits that the Organization's contention is without merit and that the claim in behalf of Conductor Slmmermon should be denied.

All data presented herewith and in support of the Company's position have heretofore been submitted in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of this dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: Rule 38 governs the operation of extra conductors and provides in part:

"(a) All extra work of a district * ' * shall be assigned to the extra conductors of that district when available, except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e)."

(Paragraph (d) is not involved here)

"(e) This rule shall not operate to prohibit the use of a foreign district conductor out of a station in service moving in a direct

It is obvious that paragraph (e) permits the company to use foreign district conductors for the service specified even though extra conductors of the district are available, but it does not restrict the use of foreign district conductors to the service specified if no extra conductors of the district are available. Question and Answer 7 under that paragraph confirms that view.

Thus paragraph (e) was not applicable to the assignment of Conductor Carr to service in Miami. He was assigned to operate to Washington. While en route the destination of his train was changed to New York and upon arrival in Washington he was so advised and instructed to continue in service to New York. That action was proper under Rule 38 (b) which provides in part:

"It is understood that Management has the right to change an extra conductor's assignment when the destination of his train is changed en route, in which event the conductor will continue to the new destination."

The contention that the conductor's assignment must be changed en route is without merit as the rule refers only to a change in the destination of the train en route. Hence the claim must be denied.

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

That the parties to this dispute 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 the agreement was not violated.

AWARD