fact that its authority is restricted to deciding "* ° * disputes between an employe or group of employes and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions * * *:' (Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act.)

The Board cannot, under the law, do what is here demanded by the ORT without disregarding the evidence presented and the agreement and practices thereunder, and attempts to impose upon the carrier conditions of employment and obligations with respect thereto which have not heretofore been agreed upon. The Board has heretofore held that it would not take such action.

In Third Division Award 6007, Referee Messmore, it was held:

"In determining the rights of the parties, it is our duty to interpret the applicable rules of the parties' agreement as they are written. It is not our privilege or right to add thereto. See Award 4435:'

In Third Division Award 6828, Referee Messmore, it was held:

"The authority of this Division is limited to interpreting and applying the rules agreed upon by the parties.

`The burden of establishing facts sufficient to require or permit the allowance of a claim is upon him who seeks its allowance.' See Awards 3523, 6018, 5040, 5976."

The Board, being restricted by law, and having heretofore recognized the limitations placed upon it, cannot sustain the claim here presented.

CONCLUSION

Carrier has proven that:

(a) The effective Telegraphers' Agreement has not been violated as alleged and the monetary demand here made is not supported by any provision therein.

(b) Sending the claimant from New Baden to Albers to work was not only in accordance with the provisions of the plain language of the agreement in evidence, but in accordance with practices thereunder.

(c) Part (3) of the claim was paid and that part of it is subsequently withdrawn by the ORT's General Chairman. Why the ORT here attempts to again assert it only the ORT can say.

Claim, being without any basis, the Board cannot do other than make a denial award.

OPINION OF BOARD: H. E. Claar, the regularly assigned agent at Albers, Illinois, was absent on January 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1957, because of a death in his family. Claimant agent at New Baden, Illinois, 5 miles away, was assigned to and worked at Albers 1 hour each of those days within his regular 8 hour day. He received the higher of the two rates for all the time worked. He also received $5.00 per day expenses in accordance with Rule 15.

Since he was paid the $5.00 per day expense, there is no basis for claim 3.

The Organization claims that Bann, the Claimant, was suspended from work in violation of Rule 9 and is therefore entitled to 8 hours' pay for each day he was suspended from his work at New Baden.

Carrier asserts that Claimant was temporarily assigned to Albers in accordance with Rule 14.

The record does not indicate that there was anyone available to fill the temporary vacancy at Albers, nor does it allege that Claimant was obliged to absorb overtime.

The facts in this case are quite similar to those in Award 6737 (Shake) and we hold that award as controlling here.

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary