(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 that:

 (a) Carrier violated Rule 58, when, on or about February 19, 1971, toilet and water facilities at the Maintenance Unit Headquarters, West Newton, Pa., were unusable.

 (b) Carrier should now pay to Signal Maintenance Employes Charles T. Green, Marion D. Swaney, John Zurick, Jr., and James E. Brown one dollar ($1.00) per day until such time as this condition is corrected.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants allege that Carrier violated Rule 58 because
 toilet and water facilities at the Maintenance Unit Head
 quarters were unusable. Rule 58 requires:

It appears that from mid-February until sometime in September of 1971, the toilet facilities at Claimants' Headquarters were virtually unusable.

 The Carrier appeared to recognize a violation because in early May, 1971, the Division Engineer advised the Local Chairman:

i


Although Carrier now argues that the employees rejected the proposal, the record, as established Under the rules of this Board, we may not consider matters raised after submission here.

 From a review of the entire record we conclude that there was a violation of the Agreement.

 The Organization seeks nominal damages in the amount of $1.00 per day for each Claimant during the period of the violation, citing Award 13092 (West). We are reluctant to award any damages in this dispute. While we do not discount that certain inconveniences may have been suffered by Claimants from time to time, they obviously recognize an impossibility of establishing either the fact, or quantum, of monetary damages. We have no authority to impose a punishment see Award 19750 (Lieberman) and Awards cited therein, nor will we engage in speculation (see this Referee's Award 19832).

 The record shows that Claimants were advised to use other facilities. Nothing of record suggests that Carrier objected to any additional time consumption occasioned by th anti-pollution and ecological requirements. The record fails to show that under the circumstances the Carrier was dilatory in its correction of the problem.

 Award 13092, cited by Claimants, suggested an award of nominal damages as a prevention of a recurrence of a violation. While nominal damages may or may not be an appropriate remedy for an Agreement violation (we do not decide that issue), there is nothing of record here to suggest, in any manner, that Carrier was indifferent toward, or ignored, the violation. In point of fact, Carrier recognized the difficulty and corrected same. For the reasons stated above, we will deny Claimants' claim for damages. See Award 18283 (Devine).



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.


                      A W A R D


        Claim (a) is sustained.


        Claim (b) is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAIOROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~4,1, ~~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1974.