Foam 1 NATIONAL PLAILFOAD AD..TUST~·E?"TT BOAi'~.t~ Award No. 7 559
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7095
 2-BNI-Eia- '77


( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'
 ( De_par·tm:;;1t, A. F. of L. - C . 1. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical tvorkers )
 (
 (Burlington Northern Inc.

 Dispute:._. Claim of Employes:.











f ir:d i n ,,~Ls
The Second Division of the Adj ustment Board, ur~on the inhale record arcs. a11 the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the em ploye or em~ployes involved in this dispute are reswectivelzr carrier and amu_r.-1_ot,re within the meaning of tae Railway Labor Act as approved tune '21, 1~-3~-; .

 This Di~tTi.s 7.an of the Adjust-rent Board has jurisdictian. ove:· the dispute-. involved herein.

The Claimant, Mr. C. L. DollinEtcn, holds system seniority as ConLmunica-.tlon 'Pechrici.an class 1-A (for-me'l;y telephone i.n:.pectors, class s.-!!; . Immediately, prior to t,-,c circumstances gs_vin.!°ise to this c1a,::,~., the Clai;rlara i",ras occupying the position of _Corr~u'aicatian Technician on the clay
tr'1C'·.:, at Willmar, M~..un2SOta. At i'~ll`'~OT., _a~Or ~rtl 1'.._.~,.>Otc^^,.. SO: '.G -l]0 m'1CS aa^l
from Willrla.r, Mirai:esof~4, Mr. Jr. F . SnE:~d vacated his position of e:c:,rmf.r:vi.cat .on Technician oz: the clay trick. The Carrier, ws i.s its right under t',_- a.SreE=_ ment, bulletaned the job vacated by l~1r, fncc.;i. as an E'lectran'_c 1'ecl.niciav Class 1 posi°:,yon, wiW the a,rditic>r~ of the r: -_'; rement of a second cl;as _1'CC' license. `=':e ~lect.r°on.ic Technician _rc.~zt-.'tov `~-M:i_not .~.~.c? r-_'.97 rer, ,-onth mare tr.va,n '?;he Glillar,wY' .;yasition. The t,.ro >en.oz" bidders on the 1~ul].~'-ined position at Minot, the COTCIi11UT31Cr3''GIOn '.!.',=Cilt?uClali Seniority 1'O'`:_;-C'?' aria' :f:". r. "'. ~oAVahE-ri.. StFa.."r';i7'2 nLaIT1_by8r 13) a21 the ~'O?niPUn'?C?.'~10'z `IP_Chi'i;.C-1an Sen-_*",,r'1t,y
 i'OSt;:L'. ~'1"..°, ~1._~ll:^c^n:~t :~i.'~. not have d 3c:='O11CI ,'.1~'.::: .'.'!W ` ~_7 GPrsC:. _ _. . S 17C-IiGrt, did
FCC license. The Carrier considered l~iY . SLtC1~;(.'i't tlte: ~",e'.rWi O' C_L1't.~.f.'~f:;.i. applicant and air,a,r?acL him the .r:csi t-lo~.
 Form 1 Award No. 7359
 "age 2 Docket No. 7095
 2-BNI-EW-'77
 Rule 63(c) states;

        "(c) It is the intent of the Agreement to preserve preexisting rights accruing to employees covered by the Agreements as they existed under similar rules in effect on the CB&Q, NP, Gid and SP&S Railroads prior to the date of merger; and shall not operate to ext--zid jurisdiction or stops Rule coverage to agreements between another organization and one or more of the merging Carriers which were in effect ,prior to the date of :nerge~^."


Under the former Great Northern Ry. Company scredule agreement, all positions such as the ones involved in the instant case were bulletined systemwide as Telephone Inspector Class 1-A s^rith no requilrerient for an FCC license. Both Minot, North Dakota and WiLlm.ar, Minnesota are former Great ITortherzz Ry. points. On September 1, 1G'72, the date the Schedule Agreement for "emmunica.tion and Electrical Department employees was signed, a side letter of understanding between the parties involved a 3_so was signed. It states in pertinent part:

        "...employees who on the date of this agreezent hold seniority as Tele;phone Inspector Class 1-A will beg .pex:^iitted to ,place themselves on any new position or vacancy of Electronic Technician ;^rhich is substituted for a position of Cuxmnunication Technician (or its equivalent title under former componer_t line Schedule AE,reements) in existence on the date of this agreement, without being reciaired to possess an FCC License, unless they can hold a, position of Communications Technician on the same shift without being required to change their residence ...."


It is unquestioned that the Claimant did hold seniority as Telephone Inspector Class 1-A on September 1, 1972. A vacancy of Electronic Technician was in fact substituted for the psotion of Corrr<nunicat-ion Technician at Minot, North Dakota; nrhich position was in existence as of. September 1, 172. The parties clearly agreed that there would be no requirement for protected employees to possess an FCC license. The Claimant was the senior bidder on the Minot, North Dakota position.

 The Carrier argazes that the clause of the September 1, 1972 side agreement "unless they can hold a position of Co:nmunicati.on Technician on the same shift -without being-; required to change their residence" precludes the Claimant, the senior bidder T~rho was other-,,,ise qualified for the position as set forth in the letter of S cptcrnber 1, 172, from ,placing himself' on the Minot, North Dakota position. The Carrier contends that the Claimant does hold a position of Cca,?mnication Technician at Wi1.hrar, Minnesota, which is the sa.me shift as the vacancy at lainot some ~r50 miles array, that being the day trick. The Carrier further contends that since the Claimant has held, the G,'ilhnar position for some time, he can obvrwiously continue to i101d it without being required to change his residence.
 _ .40

 .40
 Form 1 Award No. 7359
 Page 3 Docket No. 7095
 2-BNT-Ew-'77

    The Board disagrees with the Carrier's interpretation of the so-ca.

"unless clause". The Claimant was not attempting to bid on a poFitior of
 Electronic Technician on the day trick at Willr-qar, Minnesota, where he would.
 be an the same shift and not be required to change his residence. He was
 the senior bidder on the .position at n"root, North Dakota, and at Minot,
 North Dahota,, there was no Communication Technician vacancy on the same
 shift as the Electronic Technician vacancy. The entirety of the "unless
 clause" must be construed in light of the Schedule Agreement and the clear
 language of the Septeiioer 1, 1972 side agreement. I find that the "unless
 clause" clearly refers to the situation where an employee holding a
 Communication Techn:i.cian position (fori:ierl.y telephone inspector Class 1-A)
 without a:z FCC license is the senior bidder on an Electronic Technician
 position on the sire shift and no change of residence or general locality
 is required or involved in the :~ositiens in question. Since such is not
 the situation in the instant case, the September 1, 197? clearly allows
 the Claimant to place himself on the Electronic Technician position at
 Minot, isorth Dakota without raving a FCC license. We shall sustain the
 claim.

                      A W A R D


    Cla,'_.m sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTT,1Ei\l'I BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 ;`rational Railroad Adjustment Board

 Y __ Z)1,,,,t-/__0__~-,

      &,Ieinarie Brascli - hca:iinisi,rative ~~, s~:istant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September, 1977.
 low