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

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Carrier hired Claimant as a Carman to do Carman's work, and afforded hinn a seniority date as a full-fledged Carman as of the first day he worked.

Although some minor disagreement arose concerning whether the requirement for four years practical experience was reduced to three years (see Second Division Award 13394), the dispute centers upon the Carrier including toward the basic number of days worked to qualify as a Carman, those days worked as a Foreman or Supervisor for a company other than a railroad. The Organization cited three Second Division Awards in support of its position. In two of the Awards, the Organization's arguments were persuasive enough to convince the Board that unless the prerequisite years of practical experience were railroad work, it could not be counted. In the third Award, the Board found that based on the Rules in effect on that property, days worked as a Foreman of the craft could not be counted towards the 732 days required to complete an apprenticeship.

The Board does not agree that the phrase "years practical experience at car work" is restricted solely to work performed on a railroad. In this day and age there exists a number of car repair and/or car rebuilding firms that employ personnel to build and repair rail cars. On the property, a Leadman who functions as a working Foreman, and has less than the 732 days, has those days counted towards the 732. The advice fronn the Claimant's former employer was that he functioned as a working Manager. It is noted from information furnished the Board by the Organization that two other individuals the Carrier hired as Carmen were recognized as Carmen by the Organization, even though they had time worked as Leadman and/or working Foreman.

The Board rejects the Organization's inconsistent behavior in accepting time served as a working Foreman with at least two other individuals and the rejection of the Claimant. The Organization did not furnish sufficient evidence to overturn the Carrier's employment of the Claimant as a Carman with a Carman's date awarded on the first day of service.

AWARD