November 9, 1926 (See carrier's Exhibit No. 2). Positions on this roster with seniority dating from 1926 to 1953 were affected by the coordination (See carrier's Exhibit No. 11), therefore Mr. Bastian's position on this roster with a seniority date of 1926 was also affected.

Prior to the coordination Mr. Conzelmann held position No. 55 on the Illinois Central Railroad electricians' seniority roster with seniority date of May 18, 1951 (See carrier's Exhibit No. 3). Positions on this roster with seniority dating from 1917 to 1953 were affected by the coordination (See carrier's Exhibit No. 12), therefore Mr. Conzelmann's position on this roster with a seniority date of 1951 were also affected.

Paragraph 1 (b) of the implementing agreement of April 10, 1953 provided for the initial complement of employes for the terminal to be recruited from the user lines on a quota basis and in the order of their home road seniority. The Southern Railway quota was four (4) electricians; Louisville and Nashville Railroad, fifteen (15) electricians; and Illinois Central Railroad, thirty-four (34) electricians. The three (3) named foremen would have been included in the quotas from these roads as electricians had they not been selected as foremen because their seniority would have 'entitled them to jobs on the terminal as electricians.

Rule 17 of the Rules and Working Conditions Agreement of January 13, 1954 provides for promotion of mechanics to foremen and Paragraph C of Rule 17 specifically provides for retention of seniority rights as mechanics in the event of promotion. The men involved commenced their duties as foremen subsequent to execution of the agreement of January 13, therefore their rights as electricians are protected by that agreement as well as the implementing agreement.

If the coordination had not taken place Messrs. Bastian and Conzelmann would have remained on their home road in the capacity of electrical foremen retaining seniority as electricians, and Mr. Groomer would have remained on his home road as an electrician and retained seniority on the electrician's roster. Inasmuch as they held seniority in New Orleans and their seniority as electricians was affected by the coordination, it is our position neither the brotherhood or the terminal could take away their seniority as electricians.

For these several reasons, the terminal requests that your Division deny these claims.

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.

At issue here is the propriety of granting a place on the electricians' seniority roster to three (3) employes, V. G. Groomer, J. A. Bastian, Jr. and H. F. Conzelmann, presently employed and classified as electrical foremen.

The facts are not in dispute. The New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal opened on April 16, 1954. The electricians needed to staff the facility; some fifty-three (53) in number, were obtained from the staffs of three (3) user

railroads. This was accomplished by bulletin and bid. In conjunction with the staffing of this facility, a document, designated as an Implementing Agreement was entered into by and between the Terminal and System Federation No. 99, said agreement bearing date of April 10, 1953. Under the provisions of this agreement employes were selected on a proportionate basis, with seniority of each employe to be dovetailed on the basis of seniority acquired on his prior or home carrier.

The organization asserts that inasmuch as the above named individuals were hired in as foremen outside of the total pro rata quota, and never worked as electricians for the Terminal, they acquired no seniority rights as electricians since they were not in service as electricians on the opening date of the Terminal, such date being the date Terminal seniority commenced to accrue.

In determining the seniority status of the three (3) employes with whom we are here concerned, it is necessary to consider both the Implementing Agreement, under and by which the Terminal was staffed, and the rules agreement which was negotiated to govern the relations of the parties after the facility commenced operations. It is clear that the parties intended by the Implementing Agreement that while no employe transferred to the new facility could retain his seniority on his home carrier, such employe would carry with him, and be credited with such seniority as he might have accrued on his home carrier. This was true for all employes who transferred from their home carrier to the new Terminal facility. The Implementing Agreement covers "employes" and makes no mention or differentiation between classification thereof. The purpose of the Implementing Agreement was to guide the parties' steps in creating a work force for the Terminal, as well as to establish rights of employes transferring thereto.

The rules agreement did not become effective until after an individual had acquired employe status with the Terminal. We cannot properly conclude therefore that it was the intent of the parties that any employe was to lose his prior seniority. We further conclude that the employes in question retained their seniority on a dovetail basis as provided in Article 2 of the Implementing Agreement, and that their names should be retained on the seniority roster in accordance with the above-mentioned section of the Implementing Agreement. For the reasons stated, the claim of the organization is without merit.

AWARD