Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. On March 29,1995, the Carrier issued Bulletin Number 278 advertising four positions to comprise an Indianapolis Zone Production Gang. This gang would work throughout the Indianapolis Division (Zone) and employees of both the Southwest and Columbus seniority districts were eligible to bid on these positions. The Carrier explains the purpose of this gang to be straight railing turnouts, cutting switch timbers, replacing ties, removing road crossings and gathering track materials while utilizing rail pick up trains. When the assignments were made, the Carrier elected to fill only three of the four positions.

The Organization filed this claim asserting the gang failed to meet the criteria of a Zone Production Gang as provided in Article X of the July 28,1992 Agreement. It explains that this Agreement was the product of bargaining between the parties subsequent to the Report of Presidential Emergency Board 221. It asserts the recommendations of PEB 221, while not patterned after, took judicious note of PEB 219, which subsequently formed the basis for the NRLCBMWE Imposed Agreement of April 17, 1991. The Organization cites Awards interpretative of the April 17, 1991 Agreement that, inter alia, impose restrictions upon regional and system-wide production gangs with respect to minimum number of employees and degree of mechanization.

This dispute is nearly identical to one decided in Third Division Award 35964, between these parties. There, the Organization argued an Indianapolis Production Gang established 16 days before the one in this case was void initio because its size and function made it fall outside the ambit of Article X of the July 28,1992 Agreement. In denying the claim, the Board took note of Third Division Award 34141, which cited with approval three arbitral decisions interpreting the term "regional and system-wide production gangs" under Section 11 of the NRLCBMWE Imposed Agreement of April 17, 1991, in deciding a claim alleging violations of Article X of the parties' Agreement. In Award 35964, though, the Board noted Award 34141 declined to adopt a definition, and instead wrote:

"TheBoard does not define production gangs by the sheer numberof employees and/or machinery assigned thereto, but with the Carrier not responding to the Organization's arguments, the Board has no choice but to sustain the claim as presented. Any monetary award, however, is based solely upon the hours each gang worked on the Pittsburgh Seniority District wherein each Claimant retains his seniority."

The Board then denied the claim before it, holding:

"We find no reason to disagree with the dicta in Award 34141 concerning the efficacy and consistency of using the carefully reasoned definitions of `production gangs' in the Section 11 arbitration decisions cited therein. But the sine qua non for importing into the interpretation and application of Article X of the ConrailBMWE Agreement of July 28, 1992 definitions set forth in arbitral gloss emanating from Section 11 of the NRLCBMWE Imposed Agreement of April 17, 1991, which arose out of PEB 219, is a persuasive showing that such was the mutual intent of PEB 221 and/or the Parties to the latter Agreement. An interpretive leap of such magnitude cannot be made solely on the basis of intuition or appeals to logic, consistency or administrative convenience. The contract under consideration is silent regarding the definition of `production gangs.' Likewise, the evidentiary record in the present case simply is insufficient to support a conclusion concerning mutual intent. The instant claim, therefore, must be denied for insufficiency of proof. See Third Division Award 35435."

AWARD