Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8218
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8032
 2-SCL-CM-'80



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findi s:
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 neaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

The issue before the Board concerns Claimant W. F. Parker's proper date of seniority. The central question to be addressed is whether the Claimant was entitled to a retroactive seniority date based on a credit for military service.

 The Carrier takes the position that Claimant was entitled to and accordingly received a retroactive seniority date based upon the Federal Statute, Veterans Reemployment Frights Act, 38 U.S.C. Section 2021 et. seqo (formerly 50 U.S.C. App. Section 4-59).

 The Organization takes the position that Claimant was not entitled to and therefore wrongfully received a retroactive seniority date in violation of Rules 15 (f) and 17 of the Controlling Agreement, effective January 1, 1968 as subsequently amended. These Rules are stated in full as foLLows:


Form 1 - Award No. 8218
 Page 2 Docket No. 8032
 2-SCL-CM-'80
 "Rule 17. Employees transferred from one point to another with
 a view of accepting a permanent transfer, will, after thirty
 (30) days, lose their seniority at the point they left, and their
 seniority at the point to which transferred will begin on date of
 transfer, seniority to govern. Daployees will not be compelled to
 accept a permanent transfer to another point."

 The pertinent facts in this case are undisputed. Claimant was first employed by Carrier on I-lay 12, 1969 as a Carman Apprentice in Lakeland, Florida. On February 19, 1970, Claimant was granted a leave of absence to enter military service. Nearly two (2) years later, on January 12, 1972, Claimant was honorably discharged fraanm military service. Claimant then returned to the employ of the Carrier on January 25, 1972 as a Carman Apprentice at Lakeland, Florida. On July 25, 1973, Claimant voluntarily requested a transfer to Tampa, Florida. Claimant -rr~..s transferred to Tampa on August 6, 19;3 and completed his apprenticeship on October 30, 1976. Upon completion of his apprenticeship, the Carrier, in computing Claimant's seniority date, credited the time he had served in the military and assigned the Claimant a seniority date at the Tampa location of November 2c:, 1974.

 The Board finds that Rules 15(f) and 17 of the Controlling Agreement provides for a Point Seniority System whereby an employee has seniority at one location (point); and that when an employee voluntarily requests a permanent transfer from one point to another, said employee loses all claim to any seniority date established at the former point.

 The Carrier based its action of granting Claimant a retroactive seniority date while employed at the Tampa location on having to comply with the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act. However, the Board believes based on the following interpretat=on of the Act rendered by the office of Veterans' Reemployment Rik!ts, United States Department of Labor, the Carrier mistakenly applied the military service credit in the instant case:

The Board concludes that had Claimant completed his apprenticeship at Lakeland, he would have been entitled to a retroactive seniority date based upon his military service. Had Claimant then made a volantary permanent transfer to T=pa, his seniority date at Tampa would have been his first day of work there. Had Claimant never served in the military, but completed his apprenticeship at Lakeland and voluntarily transferred to Tampa, the result would be identical in that his seniority date would have been the -first day of his. work as a cam-an there.
 Form 1 Award No. 8218
 page 3 Docket No. 8032
 2-SCL-CM-180

 Thus, the Board can discern no reason why the Claimant should be able to gain a more favorable seniority date at Tampa because of his military service than he would have had, had he never served, but remained at Lakeland and completed his apprenticeship and then transferred to Tampa. To find otherwise, would in effect be granting Claimant super-seniority which clearly, under the applicable provisions of the Controlling Agreement he is not entitled to. The Board concludes therefore that Claimant forfeited his seniority rights at Lakeland when he voluntarily transferred to Tampa in 1973.

Claimant's correct seniority date i's determined by the Board to be October 30, 1976, the date he completed his apprenticeship at Tampa.
                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ~'d~-s,ce2~ 'w-,~'..!- _.
 ,~-iRos~marie Brasch - Administrative 'Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of January 1980.