(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that;

 (1) The Agreement was violated when, on May 23, 1976, other than scope covered employes were,permitted to repair a frog on the CNW crossing at Sterling, Illinois LSystem File 11-3/Mb7-84 (c) 9/10/7.

 (2) As a consequence of the above-mentioned violation, Welder K L. Boling shall be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at his overtime rate."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts of the instant case are not in dispute.
 On Saturday, May 22, 1976, a Chicago and North Western (C&NW) track inspector found a broken frog in the Burlington Northern (BN)C&NW crossing at S five-mile-an-hour speed restriction over the crossing and reported the damaged frog to the BN agent at Sterling. The agent, in turn, notified the BN train dispatcher of the frog's condition and need of repair. BN then scheduled Claimant, Welder K. L. Boling to repair the frog on Monday morning, May 24, 1976. On Sunday, May 23, 1976, the C&NW track inspector arranged for the repair of the frog in question by a local welder. Claimant was notified upon reporting for work on Monday, May 24, 1976, to proceed to the location of the frog and make immediate repairs. Claimant found the frog already repaired and the instant claim was presented to the Carrier.

 In denying the claim, Carrier asserts that the work was assigned without its direction or approval. We find no evidence on the record to support the Organization's accusation that C&NW was forced to hire out the repair because of BN "negligence" in scheduling the work for the following Monday rather than during the weekend. Absent contractual limitation, Carrier has the right to direct its work force and to schedule work. Further, as we noted in our Award 3-20721, Carrier cannot be held responsible for work performed "without instructions or communication with anyone in authority from the Carrier." It is apparent from the record that the C&NW inspector acted on his own motion. Thus, there was no actual or apparent BN authority extended and no principal-agent relationship established. Accordingly, Carrier may not be held culpable for the actions of the C&NW inspector.
 f,
                          Docket Number MEW-22215


r There is no oubt that the work performed on the broken frog
 was properly Claimant'l. Unfortunately, however, there are occasionally
 wrongs for which the law (or contract) provides no remedy. The circum
 stances of the instant case frame just such a wrong. We have no
 alternative but to deny the claim.
 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 th9.s Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
 over the dispute involved herein; and
 The Agreement was not violated.
 A W A R D
 Claim denied.
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division
      ATTEST:- al al &A"/a//

            Executive Secretary


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of August 1980.