Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST2,1~ BOARD sward No. 8110
 SECOl\T1 DIVISION Docket No. `7952
 2-SCL-Cr.I-' 79

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.

 System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes I

 Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated terms of
 il the current agreement when they granted '~ . R, L. W'4jams a
 Carmen's seniority date on the Lakeland, Florida seniority roster.

Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, -finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the e:plOye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and Er.,p1oK,-e :Tithi.n the .weaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The claim before us is that Carrier violated Rules 15, g9, and Appendix F in granting i:fr. R. L. VTillia,:rs Caxmien's seniority at Lakeland, Fla., without William having served the reqmi.site fot.ir years (or 8320 hoax^s) to acquire seniority as mechanic. 'he clair.! is that :.1r. Williarns be removed from the Carmen's seniority roster.

 Rule 15 is captioned "SENIORITY AT:7FILhh1G NEW JOBS AND VACANC]ES". Rule 99, CARMNtS SFECTr".L RL'T.;ES provides t,rat "Any ::own who has served an apprenticeship or who has had four (4) gears' px·a.ct i_cs.l exnarJence at es.rtuen` s work,
between Carrier and the Car::`n (anal otix er crafts) fo~ up-radin? red.? ar
 apprentices, helver apprentices, and helpers to :~echanics' positions "for
 the purpose of relieving current ._ .._w...A..r shortages".

 Williams' employment history, insofar as can be ascertained frcen the record before us, 9_s as follows:

 September 15, 1964 - Employed as trucker at Fort Meyers, Fla., under Clerks' Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 8110
 Page 2 Docket No. 7952
 2-SCL-CM-'79

 December 2, 1969 - Employed as new employee at Lakeland, Fla., as Carman Helper, pursuant to request for transfer September 11, 1969.

 November 27, 1972 - Transferred to Sanford, Fla., as Carman Helper, at his own request.
Rule)..

 - Furloughed at Sanford, Fal. as Helper promoted to Mechanic, with 6162.3 hours credited service.

 - Relieved vacation vacancy on a Carman's position at Palatka, Fla. for two weeks, resulting in 6242.3 hours' credited service.

 June 9, 1977 - Employed as Mechanic at Lakeland, Fla. with seniority date of June 6, 1977.

 The Organization filed a protest July 11, 1977 allet irg that Mr. Williams was a helper at Lakeland when he transferred to Sanford on Hove_rber 27, 1972 and that at the tLre he was granted Vechanic seniority at Lakeland in June 1977 he had worked only 36 months instead of four years or eight periods of 130 eight-hour days.

 Carrier's positfll.on is that Williams z.ras a Helper Apprentice who was promoted under the provisions of Acpendix "F"; that his nazn a -va-s inadvertently listed on Carmen F-`el~_-`r rosters. Carrier adds that since Williams eras e:lplo-;c:d December 2, 106Q as a Carman Helper and then transferred to Helper Apprentice on November 27', 1972, he had over 4 years' practical experience at Caiman's work by April 29, 1977; and was qualified to be promoted to Carrnan.

 The Organization cites Rule 117 - I-T'ZF-ER APIFIRET11TTCES which provides that helper apprentices lose their seniority as helrers after 65 days of service as such if retained as helper apprentices. VSection b paragraph 2 of Rule 47 reads

The Organization interprets this rule to mean that helpers assigned as Helper Apprentices retain help-ar seniority for 65 days; that after working as a Helper Apprentice for 65 days, Help-r A,a~)rentices are removed from the Helper roster; and that the only seniority such individuals have until they complete apprentice training is helper apprentice seniority. Williams, the Organization insists, never had any apprentice seniority.
 Form 1 Award No. 8110
 Page 3 Docket No. 7952
 2-SCL-CM-' 79

 The organization considers Williams as a helper, who was temporarily promoted and, under Fifth (d) of Appendix "FT' was allowed to retain and acc·Lu~Liate his Helper's seniority while working as a promoted helper.

 The organization submitted a copy of the 1973 roster for Helpers at Sanford which includes Williams with a seniority data of Novei:itier 27, 1972, and Williams' name on the 1973 list of promoted men, and on the 1974, 1Q75, 1976 and 1977 Helper seniority lists. The Organization also subi-~i.tted the Apprentice seniority lists for 1973 to 1977, inclusive, which do not include WiLIiams' name. Hence, it concludes, Williams maintained Helpers' seniority throughout the entire period which was not possible if had been a Helper's Apprentice.

 The record also includes a letter from Carrier's top authorized official to the Carmen's General Chair:::an reviewing 1,Tijl.ialns' service record and stating that t,7illiaans ' "position was aboli-hed at Lakeland and lie was transferred to Sanford as Carman Helper ...".

 On March 6, 1977, the Organization's Local Chairman wrote to Air. F. A. Gray, Master Mechanic, and re'erred to tjilliams as a "Carrnan Helper Apprentice". (The organization, in its Ex carte Submission, characterizes this reference to Williams as a helper apprentice as a mistake.)

 Mr. Gray's resronse on i`arch 10, 1Q77 corrected the Local Chairman's designation of Willia:::s as a Carian 17Lelper Apprentice seating: ","Tr. Williaa:;s is a Carman Helper and on the Carman Helper's roster furloughed".

 After the organization filed a protest on July 11, 1977, T,Zr. Gray responded on August 3, 1977:

In a subsequent letter from TvT. Gray, dated September 8, 10,77, Mr. Gray acknowledged that his previous letter of Yarch 10, 1977 was in error, and that Williams iv-as a Caman Apprentice while workinb at Sanford and that the Local Chairman at Sanford accepted such status.

 For five consecutive years, Williams was listed as a Helper on the Carrtian's seniority roster, not as a Helper Apprentice. Under the applicable rules, Willians did not qualify as a Helper Apprentice, not having served for two years as a Helper Apprentice at Sanford, as required.
 Form 1 Award No. 87..1.0
 page 4 Docket No. 7952
 2-SCZ-CM-179

 The only evidence presented by Carrier in its defense was a denial that Mr. Gray, the Master Mechanic, was in error when he referred to Williams as a Helper and an evaluation sheet listing Williams as an apprentice. We do not consider such evidence as probative in view of the fact that Wi11iams was carried on the seniority roster as a Helper for five consecutive years and he did not, during the same period, show up on the Apprentice roster.

 On March 10, 1977, the Master Mechanic wrote the or;anization that. Mr. Williams was a Carmen I-Helper on the Carmen Helper's roster. After the Organization filed its protest, the Master Mechanic maintained that William worked as a Helper Apprentice at Sanford.

 We conclude that Carrier was in error when it placed William on the Mechanics' roster inasmuch as the evidence supports the finding that he was a Helper rather than Apprentice, and, accordingly, that tie lacked the requisite service to qualify as a I.iechanic under the applicable rules relating to upgrading from Helper to Mechanic st<~Ltus. We :gill sustain the claim.

    Claim sustained.


                          NATIOnkh RAILROAD ADJUST?-=dT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 B .--°,' ·~...~bt... ` .~.~,.-,~'
 Rosqnarie Brasch - rdainistrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of Septe:2ber, 1979.