Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10706
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10529
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Lamont E. Stallworth when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
 (

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

























Form 1 Award No. 10706
 Page 2 Docket No. 10529
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 T. E. Lynch September 22, 23, 24, 25, 1982
 K. E. Gille September 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 1982
 Carman Claimant Dollar Amount
 J. F. Gillaume $196.48
 T. J. Nuthals 98.24
 A. Laimne 196.48
 R. Krurouski 196.48
 T. Sielere 196.48
 R. Gilson 196.48
 T. Fry 196.48
 P. Healy 392.96
 K. Tobin 294.72
 G. Hendrickson 196.48
 R. J. Heiman 392.96
 J. A. Taylor 491.20
 D. R. Gazella 392.96
 J. P. Schroeber 98.24
 T. E. Lynch 392.96
 K. E. Gille 491.20

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.
Form 1 Award No. 10706
 Page 3 Docket No. 10529
 2-C&NW-CM-'86

 This claim arises because of a strike commenced by another union, not a party to this claim, on September 19, 1982. During the course of this strike the Carrier temporarily abolished many carman positions, including the positions held by the Claimants in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Organization does not contest the temporary layoffs due to the strike, but rather objects to the order in which the carmen were recalled to duty.

 As the strike ended the Carrier restored the carmen positions on a gradual basis from September 23rd through September 30, 1982. The Carrier contends that the carmen positions were restored gradually throughout this period as business resumed gradually after the strike. The Carrier acknowledges that it called the carmen back to their positions based upon when their jobs were restored, rather than on the basis of their seniority. Therefore certain junior carmen returned to work ahead of the Claimants here because the jobs held before the strike by the junior carmen were restored before those of the senior carmen. The Organization brings this claim on behalf of sixteen senior carmen who argue that they should have been allowed to displace the junior carmen in their jobs until the senior carmen's jobs were restored.

 Rule 25 of the controlling agreement is the primary rule at issue here. The pertinent portions of that rule provide:







The language of Rule 25 does not directly address the issue presented here, in contrast to the agreement cited in Award 6545 relied upon by the Organization in its submission. Nevertheless, the Board concludes that the intent of Rule 25 was to give maximum protection to seniority rights when jobs are either eliminated or restored. Thus, the right to return to one's job embodied in Paragraph 7 must be read in conjunction with the language of Paragraph 5 of the Rule which states "when jobs are abolished, men affected will be given the
 Form 1 Award No. 10706
 Page 4 Docket No. 10529
 2-C&NW-CM-'86

 privilege to place themselves according to their seniority." On September 23, when the recall began, the situation was that a few jobs were being restored, but the majority of carmen positions were still abolished. Under the language of Paragraph 5, therefore, the men affected by the abolishment of the jobs, i.e. all the carmen, should have been given "the privilege to place themselves according to their seniority."

 Under the Carrier's interpretation, if some of the carman positions had remained abolished permanently after the strike then senior carmen still would not have been able to displace juniors if the senior members' jobs were the ones which remained abolished. In fact, this is the situation that existed on September 23rd, when recalls began. This interpretation would subvert the obvious importance of seniority embodied in this agreement's treatment of lay-offs and recalls.

 Furthermore, the language allowing an employee to return to his former position is subordinate to language protecting the rights of senior laid-off employes. Thus, in the paragraph primarily relied upon by the Carrier, the language stating that employes "shall be returned to their former positions" follows after language stating that "senior laid-off men will be given preference of re-employment." (Paragraph 3). The language giving preference to senior laid-off men would be meaningless and redundant if junior employes were to be returned to their former jobs ahead of senior laid-off employes. The "preference" language in Paragraph 3 allows the senior employes to displace junior employes once jobs become available and to claim their former positions when they are restored.

 Lastly, there is nothing in the language of this section which requires the employes to inform the Carrier in writing that they desired to displace the junior employes. The agreement provides that the senior laid-off men automatically receive preference over their juniors, and there was no need for them to take affirmative action to assert this contractual right.

 We do not concur with the Organization's claim for payment for the Claimants for September 22, 1982, however. The strike did not end until the second shift on September 22nd, according to the Carrier, and even if it had ended sooner on that day, the Carrier did not begin restoring jobs until September 23rd. Therefore, on September 22nd, all of the carman positions were still abolished; the senior carmen could not exercise their rights to displace junior carmen until the junior carmen's positions were recalled.

 The Organization's reference to the federal law ending the strike does not change our position on this issue. The Organization here was not one of the "parties to the dispute" referred to in that law. Furthermore, the language of the law requiring a return to the status quo before the strike did not require an immediate return. Therefore, the Legal contentions raised are not within our jurisdiction.

 Consequently, the Organization's claims will be granted, except for the portions involving payment for September 22, 1982.

 100
 Form 1 Award No. 10706
 Page 5 Docket No. 10529
 2-C&NW-CM-'86




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:

 Nancy ~~r - Execuive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1986.