Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8331
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8210-I
 2-SOU-I-'80
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered,
Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:


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, 193+.

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

This claim is brought by twenty-one former or present student mechanics stationed at the carrier's DeButts Yard in Chattanooga, Tennessee. After the claimants commenced their employment, the carrier hired, in JU3.,y, 1976, five experienced mechanics who were irnediately placed in the final phase of the student mechanics' apprenticeship program, In October, 197, the five experienced mechanics were elevated to journeyman status and attained a seniority ranking ahead of the claimants. The claimants assert that the carrier entered into a "contract of hire" with each of the claimants whereby the claimants agreed to work for the carrier and in exchange the carrier promised that no subsequently hired machinists would surpass the claimants in seniority. As part of the alleged contract., the carrier represented to the claimants that the student mechanic program was the only method to became a journeyman mechanic except in cases of emergency. The claimants etntend the carrier breached the contract of hire when the five subsequently hired, experienced machinists attained seniority ahead of the claimants. On the basis of the contract of hire, the claimants urge this Board to make them whole for a,11 benefits lost resulting from the lower relative seniority status of the twenty-one claimants as compared to the five journeyman machinists.

First, the claimants concede that there has been no violation of any collective bargaining agreement between the carrier and the Internatiaial Association of Mlachinists and Aerospace Workers ("IAM") but relies on the existence of a separate contract of hire. Though there is no evidence (such
 Form 1 Award No. 8331

 Page 2 Docket No. 8210-I
 2-SOU-I-'80

 as fn writing) to demonstrate that a contract of hire was formulated between the
 carrier and the claimants, such a contract would be void even if it existed.
 While the claimants have persuasively argued that the contract of hire merely
 governs the initial employment of the claimants, a more complete analysis of the
 alleged contract discloses that the claimants are attempting to control the
 employment conditions of all machinists. Since the claimants contend the
 contract of hire prohibits the carrier from hiring journeymen mechanics, the
 contract improperly seeks to establish a critical term of employment (seniority)
 fox all machinists in the carrier's employ. If individual employes could negotiate
 separate employment contracts with a carrier, the practice would effectively
 subvert the statutory role of the labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
 representative for all employes in a unit, 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth (1970), If
 the carrier and the labor organization were subject to a myriad of individual
 agreements, the industrial stability provided by the collective agreement would
 be shattered, Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Ex press Agency,
 Inc,, 321 U. S. 343 19 . The unavoidable conflict between individual agreements is apparent in the instant case. The LAM, properly exercising its authority as the exclusive bargaining representative of all machinists, entered into agreement dated October 4, 1976, which permitted the five experienced machinists hired after the claimants to advance from Phase TV of the student program to journeyman status. In exchange, the five journeymen received compensation at the mechanic's rate and a seniority rank effective from July 16, 1976. Given the prior work experience of the five mechanics and the carrier's urgent need for mechanics, the agreement of October 4, 1976 was of mutual benefit to the carrier and the organization. This modification of the collective agreement was made pursuant to Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. 152, Seventh (1970).

 In addition, the claimants' agreement of hire, if upheld by this Board, would directly conflict with the seniority terms of Rule 65 in the governing agreement between the LAM and the carrier as well as Section 5 of the February, 197+ Student Mechanic Training Agreement. The individual contracts cannot vitiate the collective provisions without undermining the structure of collective bargaining. Second Division Award No, 186 (DeVaney). Therefore, to resolve the irreconcilable conflict between the collective bargaining agreements and the terms of any contract of hire, railroad labor policy mandates that any contract of hire must fall.

 Second, the applicable sections of the collective bargaining agreement allow the carrier, regardless of an emergency, to hire either journeymen or studentmechanics at its discretion. By the clear language of Rule 65, three years of experience in the machinist trade plus a showing that the machinist is capable of servicing a locomotive axe prerequisites to the hiring of a journeyman machinist. The claimants have not challenged the qualifications of the five subsequently hired employes. The record is replete with evidence that the five experienced machinists complied with the prerequisites. The carrier actually tested them during a trial period to see if the five machinists could competently service diesel locomotives. Thus, there has been no violation of Rule 65 or any other term of the collective bargaining agreements and this Board must dear all twenty-one claims.

Form 1

Pie 3


Award No. 8331
 Docket No, 8210-I
 2-SOU-I-'80

 While this Board has heard the claims of the student mechanics on the merits, the record reveals that the claims were filed with this Board after the expiration of ltmitation period in Rule 35(x)(3) of the controlling agreement. Second Division Award No. 6197 (Quinn).

 A W A R D

 the claims are denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad. Adjustment Board

NATIQVAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


BY
 sema~ie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of April, 19$0,