man conductor. The record shows that there was a consolidation of cars assigned to Conductor Nichol out of Dallas on September 20 with the cars on the second section of Santa Fe train No. 16 at Gainesville, Texas. Management merely exercised its prerogative under the rule in question to delay the release of Conductor Nichol to a point beyond Gainesville; namely, Chicago.

The Company refers the Third Division to one of its significant awards, Award 7362 (Larkin), wherein it is stated as follows:

"The burden of establishing facts sufficient to require the allowance of a claim (and proper language in the agreement covering the situations), is upon those who seek the allowances."

Further, Third Division denial Award 6828 (Messmore), is pertinent in this case, as may be noted by the following language:

"The authority of this Division is limited to interpreting and applying the rules agreed upon by the parties. If inequities among employes arise by reason thereof, this Division is without authority to correct them, as it has not been given equity powers. In other words, we cannot make a rule or modify existing rules to prevent inequities thus created. Renegotiation thereof is the manner provided by the Railway Labor Act, which is the proper source of authority for that purpose. See Award 5703. See, also, Awards 4439, 5864, 2491."

See Award 9108 (Hornbeck).

CONCLUSION

In this ex parts submission the Company has shown that Rule 28 (b) (2) permits the Company to annul an extra conductor's assignment when the cars in his charge are consolidated with cars of another train or trains that are in charge of a Pullman conductor. Further, the Company has shown that there is no language in Rule 38 that restricts Management in its decision to release an extra conductor at any point beyond the point at which a consolidation occurs. In this case, Conductor Nichol was released at a point, Chicago, where his services were no longer necessary or required. Finally, the Company has shown that awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board require the Organization to bring forward facts sufficient to support its claim and proper language in the Agreement covering the situation.

The Organization's claim in behalf of Conductor Nichol is without merit and should be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: These claims grow out of a consolidation of Pullman cars at Gainesville, Texas, and the subsequent removal of Conductor C. M. Nichol at Chicago, Illinois, from his destination, Atlantic City, New Jersey. On September 20, 1962, Mr. Nichol, on extra conductor's assignment, departed from Dallas, Texas, on regular Santa Fe destined for Atlantic City, New Jersey. At Gainesville, Texas, the five cars in the section were joined with eight Pullman cars under service of Conductor C. R. Condit. Mr. Nichol's assignment was cancelled at Chicago on September 21, 1962. Claim is filed by Conductor Nichol for compensation for the trip from Chicago to Atlantic City plus deadhead service to Dallas, Texas, on the grounds

«1 ! i · ~k

It is understood that Management has the right to annul an extra conductor's assignment under the following conditions:

~ s r w »

(2) When the cars in his charge are consolidated with cars of another train, or trains, that are in charge of a Pullman conductor, or Pullman conductors, except an extra conductor's assignment shall not be annulled when the cars in his charge are consolidated with the cars of another train that are in charge of a Pullman conductor and, by such consolidation, the need for an additional conductor is created."

Carrier takes the position that there is no provision in the Rule requiring it to release an extra conductor at a point where the cars are consolidated. It asserts, that, "it is left strictly up to the discretion of management as to when it is necessary for two conductors to take care of the service on any train." According to this principle, it decided that two conductors were not required between Chicago and Atlantic City.

Rule 38 is pertinent to this dispute because it sets forth the conditions under which an extra conductor's assignment may be annulled. It is apparent to us that the point where his services can be dispensed with is at the place of consolidation, for this is the point which is crucial in determining whether or not management can dispense with the services of one of its conductors. After exercising its judgment, management has a responsibility to dismiss the conductor not needed or to keep him for his original assigned destination. To interpret this Rule otherwise is to make meaningless the consolidation situation which establishes the reason for keeping or dismissing a conductor.

It is apparent to us that at Gainesville the Carrier determined that it had a need for Conductor Nichol; and, therefore, he should have been continued to Atlantic City, New Jersey. The fact that he was maintained for a distance of 900 miles after the consolidation point demonstrates the continued need for his services. Since no further changes or consolidations modified the situation that took place at Gainesville, there is no reason why Carrier should have annulled his assignment at Chicago.

We hold that Carrier violated the Agreement of the parties. Claimant, having already been paid for a service trip Dallas to Chicago and a deadhead trip Chicago to Dallas, shall now be entitled to a service trip Chicago to Atlantic City and a deadhead trip Atlantic City to Chicago.

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 the Agreement of the parties was violated.

AWARD