" * * =` the * * * handled * * * an identical claim as here before us. * * * the Grand Lodge officer accepted the declination * * *. This acceptance on the part of the Petitioner evidences agreement with the Carrier that men having less than eight hours' rest will not be considered available for service and the Division so holds."

Award No. 19307, Referee Ferguson, denied:

"The Division finds the facts in this case to be the same as those found in the settlements recited by the respondent and the claim here presented must be and is denied."

Award No. 19346, Referee Daugherty, denied:

"* * * Settlements of record show that the parties have agreed there is no claim basis when the work is done by road brakemen in connection with their own engine."

CONCLUSION

The rules of the applicable agreement and the interpretation that previously has been placed on these rules by the parties to the dispute prove conclusively that Mr. Braswell has seniority rights at Rocky Mount, N. C. which antedate those of the claimant. In accordance therewith, the claim should be denied.

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.

W. L. Braswell was transferred from the Agency's Norfolk point to Rocky Mount, North Carolina, as garage foreman, on May 1, 1949. At that time the only other employe at the Agency's Rocky Mount garage was W. F. Williams, who resigned from service on June 16, 1950.

From June 16, 1950 until August 23, 1950, the Rocky Mount operation was that of a "one man garage" under Braswell.

On August 23, 1950, the Claimant became a Machinist Garage Mechanic at Rocky Mount.

Effective May 26, 1961, the Agency elected to lay off the Claimant, and assigned Braswell to perform Machinist Garage Mechanics' work formerly performed by Claimant.

It is Claimant's contention that Braswell acquired no seniority as a Machinist Garage Mechanic at Rocky Mount, and that Claimant was unjustly laid off.

It is the Agency's contention that Braswell did acquire seniority under the controlling agreement as of June 16, 1950, prior to that of Claimant.

The question to be determined is:

During the period from June 16, 1950 to August 23, 1950 did Braswell, working as a "one man garage" acquire Machinist's Garage Mechanic seniority at Rocky Mount?

Rule 1 of the Controlling Agreement reads as follows:

"Employes Affected. The Express Agency will recognize the right of the International Association of Machinists to make the rules with the Express Agency to govern all employes doing the work of Machinist or Automobile Mechanic, Machinist Helper or Automobile Mechanic's Helper, Apprentice and Helper Apprentice, their gang leaders, and employes who use the tools of the trade to instruct, inspect, and test the work of the above-mentioned employes, at all shops and garages, or other facilities of the Express Agency where employes performing such work are now represented by the Union."

Rule 31 of the Controlling Agreement reads as follows:

"Seniority. Seniority of employes covered by this agreement shall be confined to the point employed. An employe in the service of the Company thirty (30) calendar days or more shall be considered a permanent employe and shall accumulate seniority rights from date he first entered service."

A careful reading of both Rules and a review of the arguments and statements on behalf of the Agency and the Employes convinces us that Braswell came within the protection of the Agreement during the period June 16 to August 23, 1950, and acquired rights senior to those of the Claimant for the work here in question.

The references to errors and change in certain seniority rosters was not determinative in our conclusion. Seniority is not dependent on clerical computation or error. It arises from the Agreement which outlines the rights to which the employe is entitled.

Certain procedural objections have been made to the record as it appears before us, and we shall dispose of them even though the determination of the objections does not affect the merits of the dispute before us.

First, the Agency objects to the failure of the employes to include in their original Submission the so-called "All Data" statement in accordance with Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and with Circular "A" of the Second Division. The objection comes too late, and there is nothing in the Submission by the Agency or in its Rebuttal which indicates that all data had not been submitted on the property. (Except the matter dealt with in the following paragraph).

The next objection is by the Agency to Exhibits 2 and 3 attached to the Employes' Rebuttal, as violative of the above mentioned Circulars. This objection is valid and is sustained, since a comparison of the dates of the exhibits with the date of the Employes' Notice of Intention shows that these exhibits could not have been considered on the property. We decline-to consider them as a part of the record here.

The matter of the submission of a brief by the Carrier Member of the Committee assigned to this dispute has been challenged by the Employe Member as violative of Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and of our Circular "A", in that this document adds to the Record as made and places before us new matter not heretofore made a part of the particular question in dispute.

A "Brief" can be defined as a presentation of the authorities both legal and logical to sustain an advocate's position. The logical argument should be confined to the facts in the record which is being examined, and hypothetical .examples drawn around those facts. The legal argument should be confined to relevant and pertinent authority or precedent. All should be drawn together with a view of advising the decisional authority of the advocate's position. There should be no extrinsic evidence presented; it is to be an abstract of the record as already made with the logical conclusion drawn, based upon the .authorities cited.

We have examined the Brief submitted herein, and do not find that it offends any of these principles, and accordingly its submission is not in violation of any of our Rules.

The more particular objection that Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D" attached to the Brief are new matter and should not be considered by us is also overruled, since an examination of the exhibits in question reveals that they are copies of official documents of the files of this Division, to which all Members have access, and the contents of which all Members are aware.

AWARD