Association of Machinists. The carrier insists also that the granting of seniority requested by the employes would be an arbitrary fixing of seniority dates for these workers. The employes answer that if these men were not entitled to seniority, under the general rule, the local committee and the general chairman of one of the federated unions could not change the general rules laid down for all of the crafts. The seniority rule, applicable to all employes, could not, the employes insist, be waived with respect to one of the crafts.

The conclusion to which we are forced to arrive is that the apprentices were not entitled to a seniority status in 1933 above furloughed workers of the Paducah shops and those who wished to transfer to the Paducah shops. They could not properly have been employed at that time and have been given seniority over others having a prior right. Their seniority must have been subordinate to workers previously employed. The action of the local committee and of General Chairman Bass could not change the rules laid down for all of the crafts in the agreement and disputes arising out of such action could properly come before this Division . " (Emphasis added.)

In this dispute the International Association of Machinists are endeavoring to change the application of a general rule as interpreted by this Board and the practice resulting therefrom that has prevailed for over twelve years. The only way this can be done is by negotiation by the parties pursuant to the provisions of Rule 151 and the Railway Labor Act.

On basis of the circumstances in this particular case, it will be noted that all employes having a seniority date on the machinists' roster subsequent to April 17, 1935, were furloughed, and the positions therein that were retained were simultaneously bulletined. Mr. Tally, having a seniority date of February 11, 1941, could have bid on seven-day positions held by junior employes, Messrs. Tatom, Gallagher or Creamer who were on the same shift, but for some reason he elected not to do so. The opinion of this Board in Award 269 reads in part:

". . Complainants Smith, Felder and Cothern could have remained in the service, if they had bid for the jobs, because they were senior to three of those selected . . . These men did not bid for the jobs, and, consequently, three men of lower seniority were given the positions . . ."

The conditions in the instant case are identical, i. e., Mr. Tally did not take advantage of the opportunity to bid on the jobs that were to be retained, and the carrier assigned men who did bid for the work on the jobs. Mr. Talley also had opportunity to bid in the seven day positions on the same shift vacated by Mr. Rawles and bulletined per carrier's Exhibit D. He (Talley) could have remained in the service if he had bid for any one of these jobs because he was senior to the employes selected, therefore, he has no just or valid claim. Under these circumstances, there has been no violation of the agreement, the furlough being handled in the same manner and in accordance with the agreement on this property since May, 1936, and as approved by this Board in Award 269.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

AWARD