PARTIES ) The Delaware and Hudson Railroad Corporation
 TO Ties ) and
 DISPUTE:) Brotherhood of Maintenance of t,Tay Employer
 QUESTION Contention of the Employer that the carrier is
 AT ISSUE: in violation of the provisions of Article IV,
 Section 6, of the February 7, 1905 Agreement
 because of its failure and refusal to provide representa
 tives of the employer with lists of protected employes and
 other pertinent information as required by said section 6
 of Article IV and specifically by Question and Anscaer No. 2
 on page 15 of the mimeographed Interpretations of November 24,
 1965.

 OPINION Carrier provided the Employer on March 1, 1966 with
 OF BOARD: lists of protected employees. To that extent ii
 clearly complied with the requirements of the Agreement of February 7, 1965, and Question No. 2 on page 15 of the Interpretations dated November 24, 1965.

 Carrier has not provided the "other pertinent information" which was requested by the Employer. In his letter of March 7, 1966, acknowledging receipt of the lists supplied by Carrier on March 1, the General Chairman also requested such data as the number of days worked in 1962, 1963, and 1964, as well as rates paid and compensation received in 1904. Such information on all employees is not required either by the Agreement or by the Interpretations.

 Question No. 2 on page 15 of the Interpretations provides that "in individual cases as they arise, the carriers vrill, on request, furnish information showing the normal rate of compensation..." However, the General Chairman was not making a request of Carrier for information in individual cases, but in the cases of all employees "represented by our Brotherhood."

 Had the parties to the Agreement meant to require the Carriers to provide such information for all employees in its employ, they would not have restricted it to "individual cases as they arise." Instead, and for presumably cogent reasons, the burden of supplying information on compensation was placed upon the Carriers only where specific claims were made by individuals.

Neither the Agreement nor"the interpretations can be stretched to encompass that which the Employes see7: to obtain in this case.

          Claim denied.


                            ~~''~uC-~-


                        MiltV/~edman, Referee


Washington, D. C. May 9, 1969