Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10020
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9895
 2-B&O-CM-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Tedford E. Schoonover when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Etnployes:














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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1 934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.






In presenting argument in support of the~claim the Organization outlines the situation as follows:

Form 1 Award No. 10020
 Page 2 Docket No. 9895
 2-BOO-CM-'84
 rest days, Thursday and Friday, and without affording him the mandatory '''~`
 ,five working days advance notice' as per Rule 24 (b), instructed him
 to immediately, on the date of April 14, 1981, the same date that
 appears on the abolishment notice, Bulletin # 11, attached hereto as
 Employes Exhibit (D), exercise his seniority. As per instructed by
 his immediate Supervisor, Mr. E. Brazil, Claimant did, in fact,
 exercise his seniority, bumping into the position held by Cayman
 Joffe, Bay View, such position, Car Inspector, 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M.
 shift, rest days, Tuesday and Wednesday. Claimant had previously
 during his work week observed rest days of Thursday and Friday. Upon
 advising his Supervisor of his intention to bump Mr. Joffe, he was
 informed that he was not to work the following day, that day being
 April 15, 1981, Wednesday, a rest day of the position he was assuming.
 Thus, Claimant was forced to lose one (1) full day, eight (8) hours
 compensated service."
Carrier describes as follows the circumstances out of which the claimant's position was abolished and he exercised his seniority on another position:
"On Tuesday, April 14, 1981, due to physical problems, Bayview, Maryland Cayman F. Young removed himself from his regular assignment. In order to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Young's absence, Carmen assignments at Bayview Yard were rearranged. This rearrangement resulted in the abolishment of the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM assignment belonging to Claimant v. J. Dowling. Mr. Dowling's assignment had








The Organization contends for a literal interpretation of Rule 24 (b) and argues that whether claimant lost or gained in earnings as a result of the rearrangement is irrelevant. Thus, the Organization maintains that the rule requires a 5-day notice when there is an abolishment of positions or a reduction in force.
It is clear from data. presented in the Carrier Submission that claimant did not lose any earnings as a result of the rearrangement of positions and his exercise of seniority. The complete picture showing claimant's work days and rest days both under his original assignment and the new job to which he exercised his seniority is as follows:

Form 1 Award No. 10020
 Page 3 Docket No. 9895
 2-B&O-CM-'84
 As a result of the rearrangement, however, Mr. Dowling's assignment
 was abolished effective 3:00 PM, Tuesday, April 14 and he moved onto
 a 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM assignment with rest days of Tuesday and
 Wednesday.
 Mr. Dowling observed the Wednesday, April 15 rest day of his new
 assignment and then resumed work on Thursday, April 16. The result
 was that during the two-week period beginning Saturday, April 11 and
 ending Friday, April 24, Mr. Dowling worked eleven days. Over the
 same time period, had Mr. Dowling retained his original assignment,
 he would obviously have worked only ten days. Note the following
 table. The first column indicates the days Mr. Dowling would have
 worked on his original assignment and the second column indicates the
 effects of the rearrangement. The symbol 'X' denotes days worked.




















The Organization argues that the mere abolishment of a position, even absent a force reduction, is sufficient under Rule 24 (b) to require a 5-day advance notice. Carrier contends -this is erroneous -and traces the. errolution of the rule in support of its position.
The rule resulted from a Section 6 Notice by which the organization endeavored to provide protection to employes affected by abolishemnt of positions and reductions in force by requesting that:
 Form 1 Award No. 10020
 Page 4 Docket No. 9895
 2-B&O-CM-'84
 "a11 employees who may be affected by such reduction in force or
 abolition of position will be given not less than six months advance

Following unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the matter the dispute was referred to Emergency Board No. 145 which recommended:


The above recommendations were adopted by the parties in later negotiations
 and resulted in the provisions of Rule 24 (b) as reviewed herein.
 This brief review of the negotiating history leading up to Rule 24 (b)
 shows clearly that protection for employes affected by the abolishment of
 positions and reductions in force was the objective sought in the Section 6
 Notice. The protection was requested during a period when carmen, as well as
 railroad employes generally, were suffering severe job losses.
 In the instant case the abolishment was not related to a reduction in
 force but was, in fact, a rearrangement due to Cayman Young removing himself ,_,rfrom his regular assignment. The rearrangement was necessary to assure
adequate staffing of carmen at Bayview Yard.
The Organization insists on the five-day notice stated in the rule without relating to the joint conditions of job abolishment and reduction in force. Clearly these conditions must be considered as coupled together in the rule just as they were in the Section 6 Notice. The instant case did not arise out of a force reduction and claimant did not lose any time as a result of his exercise of seniority. In fact, as shown by the above data presented by the Carrier he actually worked eleven days during the two-week period whereas he would only have worked ten days had he stayed on his original assignment. Common sense and logic requires denial of the claim as being inconsistent with the objectives and conditions set forth in the rule. The claim is advanced on purely technical grounds without taking auto account the negotiating history or the purpose served by the rule.
The awards submitted in support of the claim all pertain to situations wherein shift changes were involved. They were cases on different carriers and involved different rules. We cannot accept that they serve as precedents for decision in the instant case.
 Form 1 Award No. 10020
 Page 5 Docket No. 9895
 2-B&O-CM-'84


    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August, 1984.