between the carrier and System Federation No. 97 and not on the unilateral position advanced by only one of the several crafts comprising System Federation No. 97.

The carrier also desires to call attention to the fact that a sustaining award in the instant dispute would have the effect of validating a subsequent claim in behalf of Machinist Apprentice B. G. Allen at Cleburn for payment of twenty (20) days, which has also been progressed to the Second Division in notice submitted to Executive Secretary H. J. Sassaman on April 7, 1959, by President Michael Fox of the Railway Employes' Department who stated the claim as follows:

"1. That under the provisions of the Shop Crafts' Agreement, Machinist Apprentice B. G. Allen, Cleburne, Texas, was improperly furloughed from Carrier service on January 31, 1958, while at the same time a Machinist Apprentice junior in seniority to Mr. Allen, at Cleburne, was retained in service.

2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to pay Machinist Apprentice B. G. Allen twenty (20) days, of eight (8) hours each, additional compensation at pro rata rate,"

As indicated by the carrier in the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 3 hereof, Mr. G. B. Allen with an indenture date of June 11, 1957, was the senior machinist apprentice affected by the force reduction at Cleburne, effective with close of shift on Friday, January 31, 1958.

In conclusion, the carrier asserts that in light of all of the facts and circumstances outlined herein it is clear that the request, or claim, of the employes in the instant dispute is entirely without merit or support under any agreement rule and should be either dismissed or denied for the reasons previously expressed herein.

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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Claimant, J. L. Titman, «=as indentured as a machinist apprentice at Chicago, Illinois on January 27, 1955. He was permanently transferred to Cleburne, Texas, effective October 18, 1957.

On January 31, 1958 fifteen machinist apprentices were furloughed at Cleburne, the senior man being B. G. Allen with indenture date of June 11, 195 7. The organization contended that Titman should have been listed at Cleburne on the apprentice's roster with seniority as of October 18, 1957, in accordance with rule 28 (d) governing seniority.

The October 21, 1949 Letter of Understanding in the fourth paragraph reads as follows with reference to transferred apprentices: "* * * will have the same status as though they had completed their apprenticeship at the original point indentured * * *". The organization argued that this provision referred merely to taking up the training program at the same place or level.

The Board feels that it is impossible to give such a restricted meaning to the phrase "the same status".

If the organization's contention were to prevail the instant claimant would acquire "home point status" of two kinds; he would be senior to the majority of apprentices in type and level of training and in the immediacy of his acquiring mechanics seniority; and he would be junior to the majority of the apprentices in all those rights that appertain to rank or standing within the group of apprentices. As a consequence the claimant would not be in "the same status" as he had been at the point where he was indentured.

While having no formal seniority as such, the apprentices were listed on a roster by indenture date and this date was used as if it were a seniority date. The Board noted that throughout the agreement and in the Letter of Understanding the word "seniority" was reserved for reference to the placement of these student employes on the mechanic's roster at such time as they attained their certificate and entered the carrier's service as a skilled mechanic.

Thus since the roster of the apprentices was based upon indenture date and J. L. Titman was a permanently transferred apprentice, retaining the same status as he possessed at the point indentured, he was properly placed on the roster of the apprentices. Rule 28 (d) does not control.

AWARD