64 obligated the Company to assign conductors to certain one-car operations not listed in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Conductor and Optional Assignments but which, according to the Organization, were nonetheless frozen. In reply, the Company wishes to point out that the one-car operation which was discontinued November 16, 1958 on N&W trains 15-16 is not listed in the Memorandum and was never covered by the Memorandum. In fact, Rule 64 (b) supports the action of the Company in that it permitted Management to discontinue the use of conductors on the single car which operated on N&W trains 15-16 between Petersburg and Roanoke subsequent to November 16, 1958.

Rule 33. Re-bulletining Changed Runs provides in pertinent part that any change of terminals in a run shall require runs to be re-bulletined and that all assignments therein shall be bulletined as provided in Rule 31. Apparently the Organization is contending that the Company was obligated to bulletin a run Norfolk-Roanoke and that failure to bulletin such a run was in violation of Rule 33. However, the Organization has not shown and cannot show that a conductor run existed between Norfolk and Roanoke; therefore there has been no violation of Rule 33.

Rule 25. Basic Seniority Rights and Date provides that in any district the right to perform all conductors' work shall belong exclusively to conductors having seniority rights in that district. Apparently the Organization is taking the position that porters could not displace conductors or perform "conductor work" on the car operating on N&W trains 15-16 between Petersburg and Roanoke without violating the seniority of conductors in the Norfolk Agency. In reply the Company wishes to point out that Rule 25 is applicable only when conductor work is present. In the case at hand no conductor work was present. Rule 64 (b) of the working Agreement granted Management the right to operate porters in charge on the one-car operation between Petersburg and Roanoke.

CONCLUSION

The Pullman Company has shown in this ex parte submission that on November 16, 1958, it exercised its right under Rule 64 (b) of discontinuing operation of conductors on the single car operation between Petersburg and Roanoke on N&W trains 15-16. The Company has also shown that the operation discontinued on November 16, 1958 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 Rules 25, 33, 64 or any other rule of the working 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 parties have stipulated that with the exception of the location and dates involved the issue in dispute here is identical to the dispute in Award 10733.

Accordingly, the opinions and findings contained in Award 10733 are dispositive of the issues in the claim before us.

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 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 Carrier violated the Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Conductors and Optional Assignments.

AWARD