(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8859) that:

Carrier violated the Agreement at Cincinnati, Ohio, when on December 4, 1977, it abolished positions on the Yard Clerks' Extra Board below the authorized and established strength of that Board, thereby depriving Ms. S. J. Toler of work to which she was entitled.

 For this violation, the Carrier shall be required to compensate Ms. S. J. Toler in the amount of compensation she could have earned as an occupant of that Board, beginning December 4, 1977 and continuing until the date she is again allured a position on that Board.

 OPINION OF BOARD: By bulletin dated November 30, 1977, Carrier abolished three
 positions on the Clerks' Extra Board at Cincinnati, Ohio.
 The abolishments were effective December 4, 1977. AS a result of Carrier's action,
 the Extra Board was reduced from seven to four positions.

 The Organization claims that Carrier's action violated the Agreement. The primary rule relied on by the Employes is Nile E-5, EXTRA YARD CLERKS. It states in relevant part:







At the time of this dispute, there were twenty-seven regular positions at Cincinnati, Ohio. Therefore, the Organization asserts that pursuant to the ratio of one extra clerk to every five regular clerks, as specified in Rule E-5, Carrier was required to maintain the Extra Board at the full authorized strength of five. In the Employe's view, Carrier does not have the right to reduce the number of occupants on the Extra Board unless the number of regular positions fell below twenty-five.

 Claimant, S. J. Toler, is the senior employe whose Extra Board position was abolished. The Employes asked that Carrier compensate Claimant in the amount she could have earned as an occupant of the Extra Board beginning with December 4, 1977, until she was allowed to return to the Extra Board on October 23, 1978.

 Carrier, on the other hand, denied that it violated the Agreement. It insists that there is no Agreement support for the contention that an E-5 Extra Board must be maintained at its maximum authorized strength. It also contends that in light of Claimant's work record, the monetary portion of the Employe's claim is indeterminate.

 Determination of the issue presented requires an interpretation of the meaning of Rule E-5. Even a cursory reading of the Bile establishes that the tone of the Rule is permissive in nature. The parties have agreed the determination of the need for an Extra Board is to be by Carrier. Carrier is given the right to determine whether an Extra Board is needed at a particular location. On this there is really no dispute.

 The Rule goes on to say that, "one extra clerk may be allowed to every five regular positions." That is, Carrier is allowed to establish a maximum of one extra position for every five regular positions. A higher number of Extra Board positions is precluded. Stated simply, the parties have restricted the maximum number of positions on a given Extra Board.

 Having decided that Rule E-5 contains a limitation on the maximum number of positions on an Extra Board, the question remains whether Carrier is also required to keep a minimum number of positions on the Board. In its evidence submitted on the property as well as its submissions to this Board, the Employes have argued that this additional restriction exists. Carrier disagrees with the Union's position insisting that there is no limitation on the minimum number of positions that must be maintained.

 After analyzing the evidence and arguments submitted, we must conclude that there is no additional restriction on Carrier's right to establish and maintain an Extra Board. As such, the grievance must be denied.

 The effect of the position taken by the organization is that once an Extra Board has been established at the maximum level, Carrier would be required, forever, to keep that Extra Board at the maximum. This contention is without
                        Award Number 2318(

                        Docket Number CL-23064 Page 3


merit. There is absolutely nothing in the Language of Rule E-5 that can be viewed requiring Carrier to keep the Extra Board at the maximum strength. On the contrary, the language of Rule E-5 is permissive in nature; it is not mandatory.

 The Union would have us read an additional restriction into the language of Rule E-5. In effect, the Union asks us to rewrite the language of Rule E-5-(a)-(1) to state that at yard offices one extra clerk must be allowed to every five regular positions. We are neither inclined nor empowered to substitute the word must for the word may. Nothing could be more fundamental.

 Absent a restriction requiring Carrier to maintain a minimum strength on the Extra Board, it is a well accepted labor relations principle that Carrier retains the exclusive right to operate its business as it sees fit. It has the right to determine whether or not an Extra Board of less than the maximtm: authorized strength is necessary. Here, there is nothing to indicate that that determination was either arbitrary or capricious. Thus, because the Organization was unable to meet its burden of establishing the Carrier is bound to maintain the Extra Board at the maximum authorized strength, we will deny the grievsaos in its entirety. A similar ruling was made in Amard 3o. 3 of Public Law Hoard Huabsr 667, Defame Dolniek.
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 iavolved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Art, 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 BQkRD

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
            Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of lrayryy 19$1·