The employes contention regarding the alleged understanding had during the 1949 agreement revision is denied, however, by carrier's representatives who were present during the 1949 revision of the agreement as heretofore shown by carrier. See Mr. Ash's letters heretofore quoted.

Furthermore, as stated by Mr. Ash in his letter of August 3, 1961, at the time of the 1949 revision of the agreement, it was not the practice for all meter repair work to be performed in the signal repair shop and it never has been the practice to consider that the work of repairs is reserved exclusively to the signal shop group of employes.

Nor has it been the practice for all meter repairs to be restricted to the signal shop employes subsequent to the 1949 revision of the agreement. Some line-of-road maintainers have made minor repairs to the type of meter here involved, such as repairing broken binding post, replacing broken glass, repairing selector switch, and straighten pointer.

It is obvious the employes are here endeavoring to obtain by administrative fiat a restriction on repair work to confine same to the performance by employes assigned in the signal repair shop district.

Carrier submits there is no provision in the signal employes' agreement which supports the employes' claim that there was no understanding or commitment made at the time of the 1949 revision of the agreement that repair work involving meters would only be done by employes in the signal repair shop district. The practice both prior and subsequent to the 1949 revision of the agreement does not support the employes' contention.

In Third Division Award 6270 and others, it has been held that "An employer retains, subject to the limitations of the collective bargaining agreement, all those functions generally considered and accepted as inherent prerogatives of Management. These ordinarily include distribution of the work load and direction of the working force."

This Board has also held in numerous awards that the burden of establishing facts sufficient to require or permit the allowance of a claim is upon him who seeks its allowance. Carrier submits the employes have failed to make their case for which reason the claim should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement when it permitted two (2) meters to be repaired by employes outside the Signal Repair Shop; that Rule 32 of the Agreement outlines specific seniority districts and employes holding seniority in the Signal Repair Shop are entitled to perform all work that accrues to the Shop by the Agreement and custom; and that a Letter of Agreement signed April 10, 1936, by both parties, is still a part of the current Signalmen's Agreement, granting the Signal Repair Shop exclusive right to perform all repair work on meters.

Carrier maintains that it is not the practice or custom for all meter repair work to be performed in the Signal Repair Shop and it has not been the practice to reserve meter repair work exclusively to the Signal Shop employes; that the April 10, 1936 Letter Agreement refers only to signal work being contracted out to outside parties-parties not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement; and line-of-road signal maintainers or signalmen, have by general practice, been permitted to make minor or limited repairs to meters.

The dispute involves a claim of one seniority district (signal repair shop district) on account employes covered by the same agreement, but assigned to another seniority district, performing the repair work.

The issue to be resolved is whether the Signal Repair Shop has the exclusive right to do all meter repair work on the property?

Letter of Agreement dated April 10, 1936, introduced in the ex parte submissions of both parties, does not list meters as an item excepted from the equipment to be repaired, or are they so named. The letter in part

reads: . . and it will be the general practice otherwise to have all signal repair work possible done in our shop, except in emergencies the winding of armatures, or such other work as may come up from time to time and which we are not equipped to perform. . . :' (Emphasis ours.)

We find from the record, that the "general practice", on various points of the property, has been for line-of-road maintainers and signalmen to make repairs of a minor or limited nature in the field, "otherwise" when special parts or repair were needed, the meters were readily sent to the Signal Repair Shop for complete repair. Here, the meters in question were sent, as "to have all signal repair work possible done in our shop."

We find that the intent of the parties, is that the preponderance of repair work on the property is to be done by the Signal Repair Shop but there are obvious exceptions, in various cases, that might arise in the field that would require minor or limited repairs.

For the foregoing reasons, the Signal Repair Shop is not granted exclusivity of on property repairs of all meters.

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 Agreement was not violated.

AWARD