`The mere fact that engines were changed could not be material. Nor would it be material that a different Railroad Company took up the operation of the train at this point.'

In the light of this well considered precedent 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 constitute a train or part of a train, within the meaning of the Rule as it has been interpreted."

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 destination 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 claim should be denied.

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: On June 8, 1957, six sleeping cars of a military movement known as Main 1476 and Main 1705 enroute from Augusta to Washington, D. C. arrived at Charlotte, N. C. between 6:55 and 7:22 P. 117. (the exact time is in dispute) on Southern Railway Train No. 32. The six cars were cut out at Charlotte to await the arrival of Train No. 30 at 8:10 P. M. They were then attached to No. 32 and carried through to Washington. Pullman Conductors were in charge from Augusta to Charlotte and Charlotte to Washington. During the layover period at Charlotte the cars were without the services of a conductor. This factor gave rise to the instant claim.

Rule 64 of the effective Agreement provides in part:

"(a) Pullman conductors shall be operated on all trains while carrying, at the same time, more than one Pullman car, either sleeping or parlor, in service . . . .

The claim is similar in all material respects to a claim recently before this Board. The claim in the latter case was sustained in Award No. 10307. It is not palpably wrong. That award governs the instant case.

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 Company violated the Agreement.

AWARD