Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11250
 SECOND DIVISION' Docket No. 10868
 2-AT& S F-E'ii'-' $ 7
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company in violation of the current agreement erred and violated the contractual rights of Mr. Robert Ramirez when he was laid off in force reduction effective November 22, 1983 while retaining junior employes on his seniority list.

 2. That, therefore Mr. Robert Ramirez be called back off force reduction to his respective position as an Electrical Apprentice and also be compensated for all time lost at his apprentice pro-rata rate of pay.

 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.

This is a contract interpretation dispute wherein the Organization maintains that the Carrier failed.to comply withRules 24(a), 44,;. and 111 when they laid off the Claimant. Those Rules state in pertinent part.:


Form 1 .. Award No. 11250
 Pale 2 Docket No. 10868
 2-AT&SF-EW-'87
 Rule 44 Voo



In the instant case the record indicates agreement upon the following facts. Claimant had seniority as an Electrical Apprentice. He was offered and iwfull compliance with Rule 11t(f) of the Agreement, declined upgrading
 -as a set-up;rElectrician by, written le.tt:er: Employees junior in seniority on
 the Apprentice roster were-subsequently-offered and.each accepted upgrading as
 upgraded Electrician. A separate list was maintained on upgraded Apprentices
 governed'-by-",Rule 114(f)-which reads: . --

 1 , - . - . ,. . "(f)TTh~e.righ.t"to decline upgrading-'is recognized, ... , .wit must be in writing . . . S'ich employe will not be eligible for upgrading unless or until the waiver is rescinded in writing in the same manner it was placed in effect. If an individual waives his right°v© Oromotioh And later retracts that waiver, he will not again be eligible for upgrading until the date following receipt of the written

 retraction of .the waiVL-r by his supervisor and,

 local chairman, whereupon he: will become eligible



In the upgraded list,-under terms 'of,-the Agreement, employes junior to the Claimant were working on a non-seniority basis and by indenture date were given Agreement rights to bidding and bumping only.

 In the facts of this case the Carrier laid off Claimant in a force reduction effective November 22, 1983. Employees junior to the Claimant who had accepted~set-up and were at the time of the lay off in an upgraded status were maintained.
wlists; that off.. Apprentice arid Journeyman;Awhere'tiY junior employees holding seniority on the AppreritaifeWist were;riot furloughed,` Carrier violated the
 'Agreement. It is the Organi'zation's position 'that force reductions had to be in reverse seniority order (Rule 24) and asJ~inior~employees held no other seniority rights than as Apprentice, they held no Agreement rights to furlough after the Claimant.

 The Carrier maintains that Claimant declined the offer of a set-up to an electrical position and "never rescinded" that declination. As such junior employes bypassed Claimant to a higher classification. It is the Carriers position that:
 Form 1 Award No. 1125fh n~.
 Page 3 Docket No. 10868,x.
 2-AT&SF-EW-'87
 "there is no Agreement support for allowing an
 employe in one classification-,to displace an : ?
 employe working in another,classification. Nor: is
 there any contractual requirement necessitating the
 retention of.an'apprentice position simply because
 an employe with less apprentice time is working a
 journeyman position on a non-seniority basis."

 Carrier maintains that -as the Claimant held .the. only remaining Electrical Apprentice position and .the Carrier~abplis.hed onlythat one position,: Claimant was furloughed in full compliance with.-the: Agreement.and Rule 111(fj-.~

 In the case at bar the critical issue is .the status o£;CVaimant who requested not to be set-up into the upgraded classification. Our review of the upgraded status classification indicates that It governs only bumping and bidding and is superseded .by Rule 24, in layoff. Under Rule 24, in accordance with Rule 111 and with considerations given to ability, layoff would occur in "reverse of seniority."
This Board's full and complete review of the contract provisions in dispute and "Appendix 4 of Agreement - Apprentice Training Program Agreement," indicates a conflict. The Claimant had the right to exercise seniority over junior employees. The Carrier determined that it required upgraded Electricians, but no longer needed the only remaining Electrical Apprentice position.. As stated in Second Division Award 9557:-

All junior employees had moved to a higher classification. There is nothing in the contract that Carrier must now offer the Claimant an upgraded status, as the Agreement provides for "promotion"-,to upgraded positions.

 If Claimant wished to avoid the layoff, as senior employee he had ample opportunity under the.Agr"tnent, to accept promotion to an upgraded Electrician position which wouhd:.have;.entitled trim to ,bump junior employees 'on the Apprentice Seniority list.-from their jobs, even though they also held upgraded positions. Claimant could,do so under,the provisions (if Rule 111.41 he was capable of doing the ,work.-,

 . ,_>.

 .., h <7 ^' , <

 I f - a'~. c', : ,· s_ ·.A.·'.an`_.
Form 1 Award No. 11250
 Page 4 Docket No. 10868
 2-AT&SF-EW-'87

 However, two principles of contract interpretations are herein applicable. First, it has long been held that employees may bump to avoid lay off both laterally and downward in classification. In the facts and circumstances of this case, Claimant had such rights. However, Claimant had never rescinded his letter and there is no evidence he was qualified for upgraded status in that he could perform the work of his juniors. In the instant case the Claimant is not attempting either lateral or downward bumping. A major principle of bumping to avoid layoff is that _a layoff may not _be used _as a mechanism to secure a position. As such, Claimant had no such rights.

 Second, another established Rule is that when contracts produce alternative results, one reasonable and the other unreasonable, the former
 -interpretation is adopted. In the facts and circumstances of this case, to find for the Claimant on the technical grounds of contract interpretation would lead to illogical results. Junior employees could then be bumped although the Claimant had not previously accepted upgraded status or qualified for their position. This result neither fits the general language of the Agreement on "promotions"and retaining "senior employes . . . capable of doing the,work," nor leads to a reasonable outcome.

 As such, this Board finds for the Carrier. The Agreement has not been violated.

                          A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1987.

                                ,~