(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when, on December 28, 1977, the 1978 vacations were arbitrarily assigned.

 2. Carrier shall now pay an additional eight (8) hours punitive to each employe entitled to a vacation or named on the vacation schedule at Bellevue for 1978.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The record in this case shows that as early as 1976 the
 Organization had been advised by Carrier representatives that too many employes were being scheduled for vacation during the so-called "prime periods" within the year. A further analysis of the record also shows that from 1976 to the date of this instant dispute no apparent negotiations or cooperation took place between the parties regarding this matter; and, additionally, there is no hin either party, at any time, as to how the problem itself might be resolved.

 In the years 1974 through 1976 it had been the practice to assign vacations in a manner so as to have as many as seven (7) employes on vacation simultaneously. On October 28, 1977 the Carrier issued a notice to all concerned parties regarding the method by which the employes were to make their vacation requests known. Said notice also advised that "not more than five (5) employees" could be on vacation at any one time. Some three (3) weeks after the issuance of said notice, the Organization met with the local Carrier representatives and protested this change in the "formula" and also suggested an alternate formula which would permit one additional employe to be off on vacation in the months of June, July and August, and in the last half of December. This alternate formula was rejected by the Carrier, however, and the Carrier continued to proceed forward in accordance with its already published notice. Pursuant to this action, the Organization's local representative withdrew from further participation in the assigning of vacation choices.
                        Docket Number CL-23073 Page 2


In this dispute the Carrier contends that the Organization attempted to "veto" the Carrier's vacation plan. In counter fashion, the Organization contends that the Carrier was "unjust and arbitrary" in its actions.

 The claim before this Board, therefore, is that the 1978 vacations were arbitrarily assigned, and, consequently, the Organization requests that each employe entitled to a vacation in that year should be paid an additional twelve (12) hours pay.

 The 1978 vacation schedule, which is reproduced below, shows that the number of employes who were scheduled to begin their vacations in each of the respective months is as follows;

 January 8
 February 9
 March 18
 April 19
 May 25
 June 23
 · July 17
 August 12
 September 23
 October 25
 November 24
 December 17

 Regarding the so-called "prime periods" within the year, the record shows as follows:

                              Employes Number of Weeks


                      June 23 27

                      July 17 28

                      August 12 25

                      December 8 10

                      (last half)


Notwithstanding the large amount of data which has been presented to the Board in this matter, without the specific vacation requests before us there is, quite simply, no way in which to decide whether or not the vacation assignments which were imple Organization contends.

 What the Board is able to deduce from the record, however, is that neither the Carrier's local representatives nor the Organization's representatives attempted to coop envisioned in the National Vacation Agreement.
                      Award Number 23100

                      Docket Number CL-23073 Page 3


In summary, it is the opinion of this Board that sufficient good faith efforts were not made by either side in an attempt to resolve the issue which is the focus of this instant dispute. Though there exists some degree of merit in the arguments of both sides in this matter, there is, nonetheless, simply an insufficient amount of substantive evidence available in the record which is needed in order to sustain the Organization's claim as made. We will, therefore, deny said claim for lack of proof.

        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.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: A U1, 4~ e
 Executive Secretary

            Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of December 180.