The Board should never forget that Mr. G. E. Leighty, Chairman of the Employes' National Conference Committee, which persuaded the Board to recommend the 40-hour week agreement did so, in part by means of Mr. Leighty's testimony under oath, which included the following:

"The men don't want to work on those days. They want to be off on those days." (Folio page 272).

"All of our organizations have what we know as overtime hogs, but I have had petition after petition sent to me insisting that we go on a 40-hour work week without any loss in compensation, and also saying we don't want to work on Saturday and Sunday, we want to get out of that service." (Folio page 274).

"They are satisfied that if penalties are imposed for services on those days, substantial reductions can be made." (Folio page 275).

The claim, as stated, appears to contain a charge to the effect that an identical event occurs every Saturday. However, the situation varies from Saturday to Saturday. Neither the work force nor the work are exactly the same every Saturday. The Carrier does not see how any liability could be established for every subsequent Saturday, in any event, on the basis of the events which occurred on January 14, and January 21, 1956, even if those events could establish liability for those two dates.

Furthermore, the claim is for payment now of 8 hours pay, at the rate of time and one-half, for whatever Saturdays it is for.

If there had been something, for which the claimant had to be used, on those Saturdays, it would appear to be obvious that he could have done it on a two-hour call. He would not have had to stay there eight hours to do it. Frequently it happens that many of those who work there on Saturday work only four or five hours or even less. Some of the laborers are extra men, who may be used for a short hour day. There would be no possible justification for a claim for 8 hours pay for each Saturday, even if the agreement had been violated.

Also, the proper rate of pay for time not worked would be pro-rata, or straight time, not time and a half as claimed, even if there were liability for a call on those two Saturdays.

The very fact that the Brotherhood seeks to make this claim (a) for 8 hours, (b) at time and one-half, and (c) for every Saturday forever, shows that the Brotherhood's real purpose is to make us work more and more clerks on their rest days, in violation of the spirit of the 40-hour week agreement, simply in order to collect the penalty which they insisted they were not trying to collect.

(Exhibits Not Reproduced)

OPINION OF BOARD: Too many matters in the Record herein were presented by the Carrier for the first time after the case was submitted to

this Board. This is true, for instance, of the statements of L. A. Gunter and N. T. Cook, and it is true of Carrier's assertion that Claimant was not qualified to do clerical work in the warehouse office. It is likewise true of all of the material contained in Carrier's Exhibit No. 2, and true of all of the material contained in Carrier's Exhibit No. 3. These matters are all relevant, and some of them possibly of special significance, in the case.

In failing to present these matters for consideration during negotiations on the property the Carrier failed to meet its obligation, under the Railway Labor Act, both to the Parties themselves and to this Board. In meeting their general obligations under that Act both Parties to a dispute that is covered by the Act and that is of the type within the jurisdiction of this Board have a duty to make reasonable effort to provide all data and information relevant to the dispute and to negotiate for a resolution of the dispute in the light of that complete evidence. Moreover, in its consideration of any case which has reached this Board, the Board as an appellate tribunal is entitled to an adequate Record reflecting all evidence relevant to the case and reflecting reasonable assurance that said evidence has undergone the test of analysis and consideration by both Parties in the negotiation of the dispute on the property; certainly in the present case too much relevant matter has not been so tested, and accordingly this Board cannot be expected to render a decision on the merits at this time.

In addition to the fact that the Record in this case contains much matter which was not presented for consideration on the property, the evidence of Record (particularly the evidence which was considered on the property and which accordingly may be properly considered by this Board) does not adequately indicate what work was actually performed by the employes whom Claimant contends the Carrier improperly called to work instead of calling him. In this connection the Record is also deficient in not adequately indicating, if at all, what work is encompassed within the term "general warehouse work" (appearing in Bulletins 283 and 291). Responsibility for at least the latter deficiency can be charged to both Parties.

In view of all the above considerations, this case shall be remanded to the property for further development of the facts by both Parties and for further negotiations by the Parties in the light of all relevant evidence. In remanding the case, the Board does so without prejudice to the right of either party to resubmit it, with due diligence, to this Board for consideration in the light of all relevant evidence if that evidence and the Parties' negotiations in the light thereof have still failed to resolve the dispute.

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 case should be remanded to the property for further development of the facts and for further negotiations by the Parties in the light of all relevant evidence.

AWARD