Action in this case was appealed by the machinists' committee and submitted herewith and identified as exhibit C, is attached copy of former Vice President Doolan's letter of September 8, 1949, to Acting General Chairman of the machinists.

Mr. Bradt disagreed with this decision and on September 15, 1949, announced his intention of submitting the case to the Second Division. I wrote him on September 26, 1949.

On January 5, 1950, the case was discussed with the full Executive Committee of System Federation No. 17. At that 'time, it was understood that effort would be made to find work for Downing, as it was stated that he was down and out financially, until such time as there was work as a welder to which Downing's seniority status as a closed roster welder would entitle him. Except for an informal discussion in Chicago on April 5, 1950, with Acting General Chairman Donnellan, who had succeeded Mr. Bradt following the latter's replacement of Mr. Downing, the case has remained in the same status except that in accordance with the understanding of January 5, 1950, temporary work has been found for Mr. Downing. A period of over a year has elapsed since the case was last handled on the property and June 18, 1951, the date of submission of the case to the Second Division by Mr. Fox, President of the Railway Employes' Department. Since Item 2 of the claim is for compensation from June 10, 1949, the Second Division will consider the significance of such delay.

In summary:

(1) that Downing's standing on the closed welders' roster is not such as to entitle him to work in that capacity and that except as an additional job were created, compliance with Item i of the claim would require that Downing be permitted to displace a man senior to him on the roster.

(2) that a job which the machinists claimed was also claimed by the boilermakers and awarded to the latter.

(3) that it is the carrier's understanding that with the possible exception of the machinists, the Executive Committee of System Federation No. 17 considered that no injustice had been done Downing.

(4) that if the machinists were sincere in their belief in the merits of Downing's claim, they would not have allowed it to have remained dormant for over a year from the time it was last discussed.

(5) that in holding the case for over a year from the time of the last handling on the property before submitting to the Second Division is significant as representing the understanding as to the status on the property and that a claim for pay including such period is so manifestly unreasonable as to hardly make comment necessary.

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.

There is no dispute here about Claimant Downing's seniority date of December 29, 1931, on the so-called closed roster for welders. The only question to be resolved is whether the claimant was unjustly denied employment on June 10, 1.949, on which date he sought return to work following a leave of absence which began January 8, 1943, and terminated April 15, 1949.

Both parties cite Rule 28(c), the provisions of which were agreed to effective June 13, 1944, and incorporated into the controlling agreement July 1, 1945.

The provisions of Rule 28(c) are obviously intended to preserve for rostered welders, under the conditions stipulated therein, prior rights to the performance of such welding work as was recognized as belonging to rostered welders when the rule was negotiated. It is axiomatic, therefore, if such welding work was absorbed by craft welders during the time claimant was on leave, and to the extent alleged by the employes, then the conclusion must be that the claimant has been unjustly deprived of employment. On the other hand, if the situation in which the claimant found himself on June 10, 1949, was brought about solely through force reductions as asserted by the carrier, then there is no cause for complaint.

The facts of record do not permit the Division from this distance to intelligently rule on this question. It is of the opinion of the Division, however, that the parties through a joint check can determine to what extent, if any, craft welders are now performing welding work to the exclusion of rostered welders, and if the findings in this respect are such as to justify returning the claimant to service on a regular position, the Division directs that this be done.

AWARD