Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10993
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10140-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Steven Briggs when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. Carman Harold Woods was unjustly deprived of work and wages when the Chicago & North Western Transportation Company violated the controlling agreement and the provisions of File 83-4-43, letter of instructions issued July 15, 1957, by Director of Personnel T. M. VanPatten, on December 21, 1981 when it allowed Foreman W. E. Nixon to displace a junior employe belonging to the Carmen's craft.

 2. That the Chicago & North Western Transportation Company be ordered to pay Carman Harold 0. Woods eight (8) hours pay per day at the carman welder's rate of pay continuing from December 21, 1981 until this violation is corrected.

 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.

As third party in interest, the American Railway and Airway Supervisors' Association was advised of the pendency of this case, but chose not to file a Submission with the Division.

 On December 19, 1981, Foreman W. E. Nixon at the Carrier's Clinton, Iowa Car Shop was displaced by a senior Foreman. There were at that time thirteen Foremen junior to Nixon and working in the same class. Ten were Car Foremen on various tracks, two were Wheel Shop Foremen, and one was a Wrecker Foreman. Nixon and the other Foremen were covered under the terms of an Agreement between the Carrier and the American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association (ARASA).
 Form 1 Award No. 10993
 Page 2 Docket No. 10140-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 The Carrier determined that Nixon was not qualified for any of the
 thirteen positions. It therefore permitted him to exercise displacement
 rights as a Carman based upon his seniority in that craft.

 The Organization asserts that Nixon was improperly permitted to exercise displacement rights into the Carman craft, thereby depriving the Claimant of work and wages as detailed in the Claim. The Organization acknowledges that Foremen and Supervisors promoted from the Carmen ranks continue to accumulate seniority as Carmen, and under certain conditions may exercise such seniority to return to Carmen positions. However, it argues that in the instant case Nixon could have displaced a Foreman junior to him and continued working as a Supervisor.

 With regard to Nixon's qualifications as a Foreman, the Organization argues that since he served in a supervisory capacity at Clinton, the Carrier certainly must have felt he had the potential to serve in a similar capacity at other locations and over different processes. Nixon should have been given opportunity to qualify for other supervisory positions. Instead, the Carrier disqualified him from same before he even held the jobs. And it appears that he voluntarily relinquished his seniority rights in the supervisory class by signing a December 18, 1981, Letter attesting to his lack of qualification for the supervisory jobs held by Foremen junior to him.

 The Carrier notes that as a Foreman, Nixon was covered by its Labor Agreement with the American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association. Under Rule 8 of that Agreement:

Moreover, both parties have relied upon a July 15, 1957, Letter of Understanding from T. M. Van Patten, Director of Personnel, to General Superintendent Motive Power and General Superintendent Car Department. And the Organization has cited Second Division Award No. 5933 in support of its position. That Award rested heavily on the interpretation and application of the 1957 Letter Agreement.

 In concert with Award 5933, this Board finds that resolution of the instant case is also dependent upon the application and interpretation of the Van Patten Letter Agreement. It is quoted in pertinent part below:
 Form 1 Award No. 10993
 Page 3 Docket No. 10140-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86
 "Agreements in effect with the federated crafts
 have been interpreted as follows:
 1. Employes promoted from federated crafts to
 supervisory positions who as result of abolishment
 of their position are unable to hold position as
 supervisor and thereby revert to the class from
 which promoted are in possession of displacement
 rights in accordance with their seniority.
 2. Employes promoted from positions coming under
 the scope of the federated crafts' agreement to
 supervisory positions, who as result of abolishment
 of position and failure to exercise seniority as
 supervisors, or on account of voluntary relinquish
 ment of position, return to positions coming under
 the scope of the federated crafts' agreement, are
 not in position of displacement rights and are not
 entitled to displace any junior employe in the
 craft. These employes, returning voluntarily to
 the class either as the result of giving up their
 position or as a result of position abolished and
 failure to exercise seniority to another position
 for which qualified are permitted to take any open
 position, and in the event there is no open
 position must wait until their seniority permits
 them to bid on a position." (Emphasis supplied)
 Thus, in accord with the Letter Agreement, a Foreman returning to his
 craft as a result of abolishment of a Foreman position must first exercise his
 seniority to another appropriate Foreman position for which he is qualified.
 In Award 5933, which involved the same parties as does the present case and
 strikingly similar facts, the Board sustained the Claim in large part because
 it found no evidence that the Foreman was not qualified to take another super
 visory position. That Board found:




Form 1 Award No. 10993
 Page 4 Docket No. 10140-T
 2-C&NW-CM-'86

 In the instant case the record does contain a written admission by Nixon that he was not qualified to serve as a Supervisor in the available positions to which his seniority entitled him. Therefore, we find no reason to discount the Carrier's determination that he was not qualified for such positions. Furthermore, we do not regard Nixon's written acknowledgment of his lack of qualification as evidence that he voluntarily relinquished his supervisory seniority rights. Rather, his Letter merely attested to his qualification level. It did not indicate that he wished to waive his right to exercise seniority as a Supervisor.

 We note the Organization's argument that Nixon's written statement was not given to Employe Representatives on the property. However, the statement itself is not a new argument, it merely confirms the Carrier's argument that he was not qualified for the supervisory positions to which he was entitled by virtue of his seniority. And that argument was indeed raised on the property by the Carrier.

 In accordance with the Van Patten Letter Agreement of 1957, we find that Nixon was not able to hold a position as Supervisor and did not voluntarily relinquish his supervisory status. He did not "fail to exercise seniority to another position for which qualified," and it was appropriate for the Carrier to permit him to exercise his Carman seniority in returning to his craft.

 Both parties presented several additional arguments, which we have evaluated in their entirety. Those which were not made on the property were disregarded. Since we have determined, however, that resolution of this Claim rests on application of the 1957 Letter Agreement, there is no need to discuss the remainder of the Parties' argument here.





Attest: _
        Nancy J~- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1986.