6. Furloughed laborer Z. Davis be paid at his rate of pay for all time, including overtime, rendered by Water Supply Helper L. Shivers, as shown in the Statement of Facts, beginning April 27, 1959, and to continue until this matter has been properly settled in accordance with the Agreement.

7. The violation referred to in Part 1 of the Statement of Claim, be discontinued and the Savannah Division Bridge and Building Gang be re-established in accordance with the Agreement.

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Claimants, as named in all parts of the Statement of Claim, each has established and holds seniority in his respective sub-department and is qualified to perform duties of his

As a result of the abolishment of the last remaining Savannah Division Bridge and Building Gang No. 1, certain employes were consolidated into and performed work of a bridge and building gang. These employes, the dates and work they performed are listed below.

On April 27 and 28, 1959, Division Carpenter I. M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W. W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Water Supply Foreman P. W. Youngblood, Water Supply Helper L. Shivers and Second Class Carpenter A. Tompkins made repairs to trestle A187.2.

On April 29 and 30, 1959, Division Carpenter 1 . M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W . W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Water Supply Foreman P. W. Youngblood, and Second Class Carpenter A. Tompkins made repairs to trestle A187.2.

On May 1, 1959, Division Carpenter I. M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W. W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau and Second Class Carpenter A. Tompkins made repairs to trestle A187 .2.

On May 4, 1959, Division Carpenter 1. M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W. W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Second Class Carpenter A . Tompkins and Tinner W. A. Holland made repairs to trestle F6 .4.

On May 5 and 6, 1959, Division Carpenter 1 . M. Farrer, Division Car penter W . W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Water Supply Foreman P. W. Youngblood, Water Supply Helper L . Shivers, Second Class Carpenter A. Tompkins and Tinner W. A. Holland made repairs to trestle A187 .2.

On May 7, 1959, Division Carpenter, I . M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W. W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Water Supply Foreman P. W. Youngblood, Water Supply Helper L . Shivers and Second Class Carpenter A. Tompkins made repairs to trestle A187 .2.

On May 8, 1959, Division Carpenter, 1 . M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W. W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Second Class Carpenter A . Tompkins and Tinner W. A. Holland made repairs to trestle A187 .2.

On May 11, 1959, Division Carpenter I . M. Farrer, Division Carpenter W. W. Jordan, B&B Laborer H. L. Boulineau, Water Supply Foreman P. W. Youngblood, Second Class Carpenter A . Tompkins and Tinner W. A. Holland made repairs to trestle A187 .2.

(4) The Board is without authority to grant the new rule here demanded, and has so recognized in prior awards,

(5) Claimants have no contractual right whatsoever to the demands, monetary or otherwise, made in Parts (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the Employes' Statement of Claim,

(6) Part (7) of the Statement of Claim is an unlawful demand,

(7) Claim is clearly not supported by the contract in evidence, the Board cannot do other than make a denial award.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The Petitioner alleges that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it abolished Bridge and Building Gang number 1 on October 31, 1958, and assigned work normally performed by the gang to a group of employes supervised by a Division Carpenter. The other employes involved in this dispute are classified as a B&B laborer, a Tinner, a Water Supply Foreman, and his helper. It is to be noted that the Petitioner does not question the authority of the Carrier to abolish such a gang, and on this specific point has categorically stated that there was no violation of the agreement. However, the Petitioner does question the manner in which this work has been assigned to the aforementioned employes, contending that it is violative of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the memorandum of Agreement of January 30, 1957, Rules 19, and 26 of the basic Agreement.

A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner in its original claim erroneously identified the effective date of the abolishment of the gang as October 31, 1959 rather than 1958, and mis-classified two of the employes. These were corrected by the organization and we make mention of them only in passing, since we do not consider them essential to the final determination of this case. Other issues have been raised by the contending parties, but we can see no useful purpose being served by discussing them in this Opinion.

We shall first direct our attention to Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Agreement of January 30, 1957, upon which the Petitioner relies. It reads as follows:

"1. Work will be assigned to the proper classes of employes of their respective seniority sub-departments as provided for in Rules 1 and 2 and other rules relating thereto of agreement effective September 1, 1949, and except as provided in Paragraph 5 will be under the supervision of a foreman of their respective class who will also be required to keep the time of all employes under his supervision."

The Organization maintains that the subject employes in effect were consolidated into a B&B gang, and as such the Carrier was attempting to perpetrate a scheme to destroy the rule establishing seniority sub-departments together with the classification of a foreman as provided in the above article.

The exception mentioned in Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Agreement, and contained in Paragraph 5 of the same Article, reads as follows:

"5. Nothing herein will prevent the application of Rules 26 and 32 of the current agreement or change the method of keeping time

or supervision of Machine Operators, Assistant Operators, Welders, Welder Helpers, Crossing Watchmen or other classes of employes whose time was carried other than by a foreman as of the effective date of this agreement."

The Carrier maintains that Division Carpenters, Division Tinners and Water Supply Foremen, come within the category of "other classes of employes" cited above, and have historically carried their own time as well as the time of any men assigned to work with them in their respective classifications. Likewise, they have historically supervised such men in their work.

The Carrier is essentially saying that these type employes have been working either individually or together over a span of several years without the benefit of a Foreman. Hence for all intents and purposes, it is involving prior practice as one of its principal defenses in this action. The Organization on the other hand, while admitting that such a practice did in fact exist, argues that such practice was rendered nugatory by the adoption of the January 30, 1957 Memorandum of Agreement. They further state that if such practice continued subsequent to the effective date of the above cited Agreement, it was unaware of it, and that at best, evidence of practice after such adoption, is only valid in the face of a vague and ambiguous rule. They contend that Paragraph 1 of Article 6 is clear and unambiguous.

We cannot agree with the contentions of the Organization that the subject employes should have been supervised by a Foreman under the circumstances of this case. The intent and meaning of Paragraph 1 of Article 6 is clear, especially so when read in conjunction with Paragraph 5. It simply means that work will be assigned to the proper classes of employes of their respective seniority sub-departments and except as provided in Paragraph 5, those employes will be under the supervision of a Foreman. The controlling words in Paragraph 5 are:

"Nothing herein will prevent . . . or change the method of keeping time or supervision of . . . other classes of employes whose time was carried other than by a Foreman as of the effective date of this agreement."

There is nothing contained in the basic contract or Memorandum of Agreement which specifically defines work to be granted exclusively to a B&B gang. The authority of the Carrier in accord with Rule 7 to abolish the gang was not questioned, and from the record it appears that such action was taken lawfully. The Carrier is under no obligation to establish a gang as such. Rule 26 is simply a yard-stick for guidance if and when the Carrier elects to establish such gangs. This comes within the purview of managerial prerogatives. It is a fundamental principle enunciated in many awards of this Board, that the Carrier, in abolishing positions no longer necessary for its operations, or in making other changes to improve the efficiency of its operations, retains all authority not proscribed by the agreement or by operation of law. This Board has held in a long line of decisions that it does not possess the authority to restore positions and must be guided accordingly in this case.

Although the dispute covered by this Docket MW-12552 is limited to claims arising in 1959 on Carrier's Savannah Division, recent Award 12820 involves an identical dispute between these same parties which arose in 1958 on another division and seniority district. In that award, the claims as presented by the Organization were denied, but the Board took cognizance

of Rule 26, which provides for a differential of four (4) cents per hour to, lead or ranking carpenter, and held that on specified dates when the two division carpenters and their assistants worked together in a common task at the same location, one of the two (the ranking carpenter for whom the Foreman's rate was claimed) would be entitled to the four (4) cents per hour differential.

This Board has frequently held that, unless palpably wrong, it is never warranted in overruling a prior award between the same parties involving the same agreement rules and the identical issues. Awards 6833, 7968, 9954, 10050, 10288. We have carefully examined Award 12820. It is not palpably erroneous, and we adopt the decision as controlling precedent in this case. Accordingly, Claimant 1. M. Farrer will be entitled to the differential of four (4) cents per hour for each specified claim date on which the two division carpenters and their assistants worked together in a common task at the same location, and in all other respects the claims are denied.

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 to the extent shown in Opinion.

AWARD