It is apparent from the above Award that the determination of whether or not conductors are entitled to assignment under Rule 64 to Pullman cars occupied by passengers at a given point depends upon whether the cars are part of a train and whether they are in service. In Award 4814, the Board found that the cars were in service but that they were not part of a train. The Board pointed out in particular that the cars could not be a part of train No. 108, which had carried the cars into Philadelphia, because that train had proceeded to its destination, New York. Similarly, in the instant dispute, the military cars could not be a part of a train since the "Augusta Special," which carried the cars into Charlotte, had proceeded to its desination and "The Peach Queen" had not yet arrived.

CONCLUSION

The Company has shown that Rule 64 is the only rule in the working Agreement which sets forth the conditions under which conductors are entitled to assignment and that this rule did not require Management to assign a conductor to the military cars in Charlotte as contended by the Organization. Further, the Company has shown that Award 4814 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board supports its position in this dispute.

The Company asserts that all data submitted herewith in support of its position have heretofore been submitted in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of the dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: There is no dispute between the parties concerning the following facts:

On July 7, 1956 four sleeping cars of a military movement known as Main No. 2685-for accounting purposes, enroute from Augusta to Fort Dix, arrived at Charlotte, North Carolina at 6:52 P. M. on Southern Train No. 32. The cars were cut out at Charlotte to await the arrival of Train No. 3o scheduled to arrive at 8:20 P. M. During this layover period the cars were without the services of a Conductor. The failure of the Carrier to provide a Conductor for these cars during the layover period constitutes the basis of the instant Claim.

Petitioner contends that this case is controlled by the award of this Division No. 3759.

In that award we said:

"Opinion of Board. This case presents the correct interpretation and proper application of Rule 64 of the Agreement. * * * When we consider all of the facts of this particular case we are of the opinion that these five cars during all of the time they were in Denver constituted a part of a train within the meaning of Rule 64 (a) and that the Carrier was required to have a Conductor in charge during all of that time."

It is the contention of the Carrier that Award No. 4814 is controlling, we quote:

"We have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the two Pullman cars at Philadelphia continued 'in service' until they were

vacated by the occupying passengers at or before 8:00 A. M. The train of which these cars had been a part, on and before their arrival at Philadelphia, had proceeded on to its destination which was New York. These cars had been dropped from the train at the 30th Street Station. Their subsequent movement to the Broad Street Station did not consitute a train or part of a train within the meaning of the Rule as it has been interpreted."

In this case, the cars were in service and were occupied by passengers and their belongings. In Award No. 3759, as in this case, the cars were cut out and laying over prior to continuation of their journey to final destination. In both cases the cars were parts of a train to which they would later be attached.

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

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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 Pullman Company violated Rule 64 of the Agreement.

AWARD