System as there is only one railroad and one seniority district involved. Again attention is directed to the fact that the CMSTP&P RR. Co. System comprises one seniority district for sleeping and parlor car conductors and the seniority rights of sleeping and parlor car conductors are confined to that one seniority district.

By the claim which the employes have presented in this case they are asking your Honorable Board to amend the schedule rule so as to extend the seniority rights of sleeping and parlor car conductors beyond the CMSTP&P RR. Company System to include also a portion of the Soo Line Railroad. As your Honorable Board has so often held, it is not the function of your Board to render awards which would have the effect of amending rules but to the contrary, it is clearly the function of your Honorable Board to render awards based on schedule rules as they actually exist.

There is no ambiguity about the language of the Question and Answer following Rule 24. There is no support for the claim which has been presented in this case and we respectfully request that same be denied.

All data contained herein has been presented to the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Milwaukee sleeping cars were operated in service between Chicago, Illinois and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, on the dates claimed herein, without a Milwaukee Sleeping Car Conductor being used thereon. The Carrier System does not operate over the entire route used between the two points mentioned but over a combination of Carrier rails and those of the Soo Line Railroad. The intersection of these lines on the route in question is at Pembine, Wisconsin, 278 miles from Chicago, Illinois.

Claimant relies on Rule 52(a) of the current Agreement and Awards 2743, 4000 and 6911.

Respondent Carrier, in brief, relies on the fact that the cars in question were not operated on Carrier's rails from Pembine, Wisconsin to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and that Claimant holds seniority only on his seniority district within a limited territory on Carrier's System. That Carrier's sleeping car conductors are not Pullman Company conductors in any sense of the term, and that they have no employment status or relationship with any other Carrier or Company. Citing Awards 5211, 6112 and Rule 24.

This question was before this Board in Award 4000 in which we said in a sustaining award:

"The Carrier contends that the New York Central was operating the trains including the Pullman cars and that the Pullman Company could not place its conductors on the trains even if it wanted to. Of course, the Pullman Company may have obligated itself with the New York entral not to use their own conductors. But, even so, such action in no manner relieves the Pullman Company of its contractual obligations to its conductors. Under Rule 64 (a), Pullman conductors should have been used on the two trains here involved. The Pullman Company cannot farm out its equipment for sleeping or parlor car service and deprive its conductors of the work which was guaranteed to them under the Agreement. If the contract could be circumvented by so simple an expedient, it would be of little or no benefit to the employes within it. We must construe it in the sense intended rather than to give it a technical meaning that would defeat the very purpose of the contract itself. When the Pullman Company placed these cars in service, by whatever method it saw fit to employ, it did not relieve itself of its contractual obligations towards its own conductors."

The same principle is involved in this case. The rule in question, 52(a), was adopted from the Pullman Company contract with its conductors, Rule 64(a), considered in Award 4000. The application to be given to it in this

case will be the same. Also see finding of Special Board of AdjustmentNational Mediation Board-Docket 3099, St. John-Halifax Movement in which Chairman Swacker ruled to the same effect when Pullman cars were operated in Canadian territory over Canadian National tracks. The Pullman Company had no contract with the Canadian National such as exists with carriers within the territorial limits of the United States.

We are of the opinion that the employs status herein was intended to relate to cars and not to trackage. The seniority district relates to the starting point of the cars and is not limited as contended by Carrier.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and uon 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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD