Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7+7-3
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 736
2-MP-CM-'77





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:









c) Cayman F. E. Trokey in the amount of eight hours (8') per day
covering period beginning February 21, 1975, until returned to
service.
Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a71 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, 193+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute: involved herein. Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimants are Carmen Mechanics that were furloughed on February 19, 1975, at Carrier's DeSoto, Missouri freight car repair shop.
Form 1 Award No . 7+13
Page 2 Docket No. 73+6
2-MP-CM-t77

Upon being furloughed, Claimants immediately indicated a desire to exercise their seniority to transfer to Chester, Illinois.

Claimants argue that under Rule 23 they had the contractual right to transfer to Chester, and to displace two (2) upgraded apprentices working as Carmen inspectors, and a third employee, D. L. Black, whose situation was entirely different.

Rule 23, in relevant part, provides:

"While forces are reduced, if men are needed at aM other point, such men as are laid off by reason of force reductions will be given preference to transfer with privilege of returning to home station when force is increased, such transfers to be made without expense to the Company. Seniority to govern all cases." (Emphasis added)

Now, Rule 23, as written, does not insure that furloughed employees may contractually displace employees at another seniority point. Rule 23 merely provides that furloughed employees will be given "preference to transfer", provided, "men are needed at any other point."

There is no language in Rule 23 providing for the displacement of upgraded apprentices, nor for displacement of apprentices who have completed their on-the-job training, but have not completed the vocational training obtained through a correspondence school course. (See Second Division Award No. 6603).

Therefore, we must deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

TBy
o*N~m~arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Datat Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of December, 1977.