Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10238
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9036-T
2-L&N-MA-'85
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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



Petitioner in this instance is the Local Chairman at the South Louisville Mechanics Facility. He protested Carrier's maintaining the name of J. H. Robinson on the machinist Seniority Roster at the L&N South Louisville Shops when Robinson had been hired as a Supervisor on the Seaboard Coast Line.

Petitioner cites Rule 21 (c) of the Controlling Agreement as its authority for its position. Rule 21 (c) reads as follows:


Form 1 Award No. 10238
Page 2 Locket No. 9036-T
2-L&N-MA-'85

At the outset, Carrier takes the position that the office responsible for receiving claims never received the initial claim in this instance. It presented a statement signed by Mr. Roy and Mr. Parrish, two Carrier representatives concerned with Craft claims, stating that they never saw the initial claim. In that same letter, however, it is stated that the Secretary in the office remembers the claim and that she did give it to the proper person. Statements to this effect are also part of the record of this case. It is this Division's finding that a claim was properly filed and that it should be decided on the merits.

Petitioner's position in the case is the more persuasive and has Agreement support. Carrier alludes to past instance's in which Supervisors in the SCL have maintained Craft seniority on the L&N. It does not, however, name them. It talks of a merger between the L&N and SCL. It does not, however, present evidence that such a merger has taken place or prove that Rule 21(c) would apply if a merger had taken place.

The fact is that no Rule was cited by Carrier to support its position and Rule 21(c) does support the Petitioner's position. It states that employes promoted to official positions with the L&N Railroad shall have the right to assert their seniority within 30 days after they leave a Supervisory position. It does not mention any other Railroad or imply a wider application than the L&N.

Based on the record before it, this Division is compelled to sustain Petitioner, claim.






                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: v rzg
        Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1985.