run is still in existence and will remain so as long as a Pullman car is operated on Frisco trains 508, 507 or 518, 517 between Dallas and Tulsa, and that the Company's "practice" between 1953 and 1959 in some unclear manner superseded Rule 64 (b) and changed the Dallas-Tulsa run into a frozen operation. The Company has shown that these arguments do violence to the clear terms of the Memorandum and Rule 64 (b), which provisions clearly support the Company's action in this case.

CONCLUSION

The Pullman Company has shown in this ex parte submission that on March 23, 1959, it exercised its right under Rule 64 (b) of discontinuing operation of conductors on the single car operation between Dallas and Tulsa on Frisco trains 518, 517. The Company has also shown that the operation discontinued on March 23, 1959, was not a frozen operation covered by the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Conductor and Optional Assignments. Finally, the Company has shown that it did not violate any of the rules of the Agreement cited by the Organization or any other rule of the Agreement.

The claim is without merit and should be denied.

All data presented herein in support of the Company's position have heretofore been presented in substance to the employes or their representatives and made a part of this dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this claim are at variance with those in Award 10616, but an examination of the records of both dockets indicate to this Referee that the operation terms utilized by the Organization and Carrier are the same, although like in all controversial situations each party places a different interpretation on their meaning and application.

However, we have ascertained from our prior examination of Award 10616 that the following terms should be recognized in order to render a final determination of the issues involved in the instant claim, and they are as follows: (1) "Runs" are assignments of Conductors between certain designated points; (2) Lines is a term adopted by the Carrier for accounting purposes, and the designation of such can be adopted unilaterally; (3) Trains as defined in this claim are vehicles created by the Carrier for the conveyance of the public dependent upon their needs, and subject to public regulation. This also is a unilateral designation of the Carrier.

All of the foregoing terms are applicable to the factual situation presented herein.

The center of controversy is over frozen run listed in Appendix B of the Memorandum of Understanding designated as Frisco trains 508, 507, Line 3392, Fort Worth-Tulsa.

In May of 1951, Frisco trains 508 and 509 were substituted with trains 518 and 517. Both prior and subsequent to the change, these trains were advertised to the public as the "Black Gold". The line numbers were changed, but the Ft. Worth District Conductors continued to operate the run. In July of 1953, the Pullman cars were eliminated on trains 518 and 517, and the. run

"New operation for Dallas Conductors account of Ft. Worth Conductors withdrawn with the discontinuance of line 3392, Ft. WorthTulsa. No sleeper now on train between Ft. Worth and Dallas."

"In an effort to establish the validity of its claim, the representative of the Organization contended in the hearing of April 10, 1947, that the Chicago Northern District conductor operation on train No. 22 is designated as Line 305, which Line was carried on the first section of train No. 22, leaving Omaha February 3, 1947, rather than on the second section to which the Chicago Northern District conductor was assigned. The Organization very well knows, however, that there is no merit to this argument. While conductor operations are designated by line numbers for accounting purposes, conductors are in reality assigned to trains rather than to particular Lines. In fact, the Organization has in the past acknowledged that conductors are assigned to trains rather than to any particular line or lines."

Pullman conductors actually are assigned to particular trains rather than to particular lines. A conductor operating in a particular assignment may handle many lines. Solely for the purpose of identification, one of the Pullman lines handled in a particular conductor assignment is designated as the 'key' line and the number of the 'key' is used to identify the particular conductor operation. The conductor's work, however, is not restricted to that 'key' line alone. He must handle all the Pullman conductor work on the train for all of the lines designated on the operating form for that particular assignment."

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 violated.

AWARD