The actions of the Employes and their representatives speak louder than words and clearly denote that they are, through the medium of their claim in the instant dispute, requesting the Board to grant them that which they have, by their own actions, previously recognized is not required or contemplated by the agreement rules.

The Third Division has repeatedly recognized and held that:

(1) The conduct of the parties to an agreement is often as expressive of intention as are the written words of the agreement. See Awards 3603, 4104, 4464, 5079, 6650 and many others.

(2) Long delay by the Employes in asserting a claim is cogent evidence there has been no violation and is clearly relevant in determining the intent of the parties under an agreement. See Awards 1397, 4536, 4751, 5404 and others.

The Carrier has presented evidence of more than four (4) years' delay by the Employes in asserting a claim of the nature involved in the instant dispute.

(3) Where a practice is widespread and well established the only reasonable inference is that both parties have acquiesced in the practice. See Award No. 6607.

The Carrier has also presented evidence that its practice under the agreement rules relied upon by the Employes has been widespread and well established.

In conclusion, the Carrier respectfully reasserts that the Employes' claim in the instant dispute is entirely without support under the governing agreement rules in effect between the parties hereto and should, for the reasons previously expressed herein, be denied in its entirety.

The Carrier is uninformed as to the argument the Employes will advance in their ex parte submission, and accordingly reserves the right to submit such additional facts, evidence and argument as it may conclude are necessary in reply to the organization's ex parts submission or any subsequent oral arguments or briefs submitted by the petitioning organization in this dispute.

All that is contained herein is either known or available to the Employes or their representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Two train dispatchers' positions became vacant for Friday and Saturday, July 23 and 24, 1954; the first was Position No. 39, Trick Dispatcher, from 3 P. M. to 11 P. M., the second was Position No. 50, Assistant Chief Dispatcher, from 9 P. M. to 5 A. M.

Senior unassigned Train Dispatcher Johnson was used to fill the second position, and junior unassigned Train Dispatcher Fewell was used to fill the other. Claimant Fewall claims that Johnson was available to fill the first vacancy, which would have left the second for Claimant, and that he should therefore be paid the difference between the pay rates for the two positions. The first question is whether Johnson was avaiable for the 3 P. M. position.

The record shows that Johnson had worked until 1 A. M. on Friday, July 23, 1954, on Relief Dispatcher Position No. 2. Therefore, under the Federal Hours of Service Law he was not available to fill Position No. 39 at 3 P. M. the same day, which was only 14 hours later. It is clear that the Agreement "must yield to superior authority of the law." Award 6843.

Likewise, having worked on Relief Position No. 2 until 5 A. M. on the 24th, he was not available at 3 P. M. on the same day to fill Position No. 39.

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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD