A study of the duties of the positions at Jefferson Street, as outlined in the Carrier's Statement of Facts, will disclose the fact that the duties of the positions at Jefferson Street were practically the same as the duties of the positions at Division Street and the changes were in the directions of lesser rated work being assigned to the positions at Jefferson Street.

The employes have cited the last paragrapt of Rule 1 (e), Rule 9 (b), Rule 16, Rule 18 and 19. Surely there can be no real basis for the contention that there has been a violation of those rules.

The two positions has been classified as General Clerk at Division Street for many except to eliminate the stenographic requirements in the case of Position 89, there can be no justifiable contention that there has been any violation of the last paragraph of Rule 1 (e).

As to Rule 9(b), it is the Carrier's position the positions were properly bulletined and there has been no violation of the provisions of that rule.

Rule 16 provides that rates will not be transferred from one position to another and in this case there was no transfer of rates, in fact, the rates remained attached to the positions without change and it would seem Rule 16 would surely support the Carrier's position in this case.

As to Rule 18, there were similar positions in the seniority district when Positions 88 and 89 were reestablished at or transferred to Jefferson Street, in fact, the very same positions with the very same rates were in existence at Division Street up to the exact time they were reestablished at Jefferson Street.

We fail to understand how there could be any proper contention with regard to Rule 19 because there was no position discontinued and a new one created under a different title covering relatively the same class of work having the effect of reducing the rate of pay. To the contrary, the positions reestablished at Jefferson Street had the same title, covered relatively the same class of work and there was no change whatsoever in the rate of the positions.

There is no basis for the request for change in rates which is embodied in the claim covered by this dispute and the Carrier respectfully requests that the claim be denied.

All data contained herein has been presented to the employes.

OPINION OF BOARD: The ultimate issue in this case, as the case was actually processed by the Parties, concerns the question whether the Carrier properly rated Positions 88 and 89 at Carrier's Jefferson Street Agency in Chicago, Illinois While one of the Carrier's contentions is that these positions were merely transferred from its Division Street Agency, the Record clearly established that Positions 88 and 89 at Division Street were abolished and that Positions 88 and 89 at Jefferson Street were created as new positions. In this general regard see Third Division Awards 9308, 3555; compare, Award 8749. Accordingly, the proper rate for Jefferson Street Positions 88 and 89 is to be determined on the basis of the requirements of Rule 18 of the applicable Agreement, which Rule provides:

"The rates for new positions will be in conformity with rates for positions of similar kind or class in the seniority district where created. In the absence of a similar position in the district, the rate of

pay for the new position will be established by agreemene between the Carrier and the General Chairman."

In several respects the Record is inadequate for a final determination of the merits of this case. A material discrepancy exists, for instance, in the Carrier's submissions. At pages 2 and 3 of its Oral Presentation the Carrier states that Positions 84 and 85 were abolished at Division Street and reestablished at Jefferson Street; however, Bulletins No. 148 and 149 (Carrier Exhibits "I" and "G") indicate that these positions were reestablished at Division Street rather than at Jefferson Street. The Record is inadequate in still another serious respect. While the Carrier provided this Board with a specific enumeration of the duties of Positions 88 and 89 at Jefferson Street (page 3 of Carrier's Ex Parts Submission), it did not provide the Board, for comparison purposes, Zvith any similar enumeration of the duties of Positions 88 and 89 at Division Street, nor of the duties of Positions 84 and 85 either before or after they were abolished and reestablished, nor of the duties of any other positions in the seniority district with which Jefferson Street Positions 88 and 89 might be compared for purposes of determining whether the requirements of Rule 18 were reasonably met. Without such information it is not possible for this Board to resolve the ultimate issue, as defined hervinabove, at this time. The various bulletins, quoted in the Record, of positions discussed or mentioned in this case do not provide adequate detail as to the nature and duties of the positions to sufficiently inform the Board for the necessary comparison purposes. Nor does the Carrier's enumeration of Jefferson Street Position 88 and 89 duties reveal a sufficient similarity to the duties of Division Street Positions 88 and 89 as stated in Bulletins 103 and 109 (Carrier Exhibits "A" and "B") to enable the Board to resolve the dispute without further evidence.

The Carrier is not alone in its failure to provide adequate information in this case. The insufficiency of information can be traced to the failure of both Parties to fulfill their obligation to provide relevant evidence to the full extent possible, In meeting their general obligation under the Railway Labor Act both Parties to a dispute covered by that 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; under that obligation the Parties also have a duty in coming before this Board to provide it with relevant evidence to the full extent reasonably possible. Both Parties in the present case have relied too much upon general assertions and not enough upon specific data and information. The Carrier obviously possesses full information regarding the true nature and content of all positions in the seniority district; and if the Organization, in turn, actually had no more information than it provided this Board, it should have endeavored to obtain additional information -if it did attempt, and failed to obtain more information, it did not so state in the Record.

In view of the inadequacy of the Record herein as a result of the failure of both Parties as noted above, the case shall be remanded to the property for full development of the facts and for further negotiations by the Parties in the light thereof. 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 the further developed facts if those facts 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 further negotiations by the Parties in the light thereof.

AWARD