OPINION OF BOARD: The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Carrier says that in November, 1952, it saw need for 26 additional conductors at its Pennsylvania Terminal during the month of December on account of the requirements of its winter service. It was anticipated that three of these additional conductors would be needed about December 1 and the others during that month. On November 30, 1952, Conductor Francis, being then on furlough at the Portland District, was recalled and ordered to transfer to Pennsylvania Terminal, which he did on the morning of December 4. His name was placed seventh on the extra board and, in due course, he was assigned at 11:31 A. M. on that day to a run from New York to Akron and return, reporting at 7:25 P. M.

The Employes say that the transfer of Francis from Portland to Pennsylvania Terminal and his subsequent assignment to the New York-Akron run was in violation of Rule 39 of the current Agreement. The claim is predicated on the fact that said Rule provides that, "The intention under this Rule is to allow conductors working on the extra board an opportunity to average as nearly as possible full time before additional conductors are recalled from furlough, obtained by transfer, or employed." It is shown that during the month of November conductors on the extra board at Pennsylvania Terminal had averaged but 85 percent of full time, and that for the first three days of December their average was less than 65 percent. The Claim is on behalf of Conductor F. Daley and it is asserted that if Francis had not been transferred from Portland and assigned to the New York-Akron run on December 4, Daley would have been called. The record discloses, however, that during December Daley was credited with 260 hours and 55 minutes, although 21t, hours would have constituted a basic month's service for him.

The Organization attempts to establish that the transfer of Francis from Portland was unwarranted because the extra conductors at Pennsylvania Terminal had not, during November and the first three days of December, worked to the extent of their normal availability. If the transfer had been ordered under normal conditions, so that future needs could reasonably have been determined from past experience, there would be merit in the Organization's contention. However, we cannot lost sight of the fact that it has been asserted by the Carrier that its anticipated need for extra conductors at Pennsylvania Terminal in December was predicated upon a scheduled increase in the requirements of its winter service.

The quoted provision of Rule 39 imposes on the Carrier the obligation to exercise good faith not to unduly augment its extra board by recall from furlough or transfer, while those already on that board are not, on the average, enjoying full time employment. On the other hand, the Carrier is not required to anticipate its future needs exclusively on the basis of its immediate past experience, when it is evident from other factors that the requirements of the service cannot be met without a substantial increase of available personnel.

In view of the showing made by the Carrier we are of the opinion that the Organization has not discharged the burden resting on it to establish a violation of the Agreement.

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

That both 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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD