In the present case the program started in January, 1937, reached a point on March 29, 1937, when it was desired to reduce the force four men and retain men on truck work. Ten junior men were furloughed and bullethi posted for men to be retained, per carrier's Exhibits C and D. Only five men bid for and were placed on these truck jobs; an apprentice was assigned to the sixth.

Messrs. Moak, White, Travis, Barron and McCullough filed application for positions advertised. Messrs. Smith, Felder, Cothern, Wells and Lederer did not, and were furloughed. Messrs. Smith, Felder and Cothern could have remained in service if they had so elected because they were senior to Messrs. Travis, Barron and McCullough. Mr. Wells' name has no place in the claim, because five men are senior to him.

The carrier has information that Mr. O'Brien, former general chairman of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, advised carmen at McComb not to bid for the truck jobs advertised, because the rate of pay was 71 cents per hour. The carrier contends the general chairman erred in prompting employes in this manner, and he is solely responsible to each man for the time lost. Fallacious advice of this nature can be construed as a violation of that part of Rule 38, reading: "* * * while questions of grievances are pending, there will neither be a shut down by the employer nor suspension of work by the employes."

The seniority principle of the rules requires that the carrier afford senior employes an opportunity to the work available, but it also devolves upon the employes to avail themselves of this opportunity under the same rules. The employe cannot be required against his will to make application for the position advertised; and, if none is made, it is properly taken as an indication that the employe does not care for the position. The fact that an employe prejudiced his right to work by taking advice of the duly authorized general committee, or their representative, is no fault of the carrier.

1. That truck repair jobs were established by bulletin when the program was started.

2. That employes performing truck work only are paid a minimum of 71 cents per hour.

3. There was a mutual understanding between the parties as to how reductions in force would be accomplished.

4. That the reduction in force was effected in the manner requested by the employes' representatives.

Therefore, the claim is without merit and should be denied.

OPINION OF THE DIVISION: The contentions in this case are that the rate of pay was reduced from seventy-three cents to seventy-one cents per hour, contrary to the rules, and that the complainants were unjustly furloughed.

The employes contend that the rate of pay should be seventy-three cents an hour instead of seventy-one cents. The basis of the contention is that the agreement provides that there is to be no reduction in hourly rates of pay for classifications or for individuals, the intention being to retain classifications and individuals receiving a higher rate, at such higher rate. The employes maintain that men who had been getting seventy-three cents an hour were compelled to take seventy-one cents an hour, contrary to Rules 149 and 150 of the agreement.