Employes performing service in the Central Timekeeping Bureau, as pointed out in the foregoing statement of facts, were carried on seniority Roster No. 6 (accounting department), while employes performing service in the timekeeping bureau Coast Division, San Francisco, are carried on the Coast Division Seniority Roster No. 1; said rosters are on entirely separate and distinct seniority districts. Therefore, by virtue of the above-quoted agreement provisions the claimant could not be allowed credit for the parttime service she performed in the Central Timekeeping Bureau during the period from September 18, 1934, to August 31 1943, in establishing a seniority date on Coast Division Seniority Roster No. 1.

When the claimant was accorded a seniority date of September 16, 1943, the Memorandum of Agreement of September 8, 1942, was in all respects complied with and no basis exists for according the claimant a seniority date prior to September 16, 1943.

CONCLUSION

The carrier submits that the foregoing position clearly and conclusively establishes that the claim in this docket is without basis or merit and, therefore, respectfully submits that it should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: From September 18, 1934 to August 31, 1943, Claimant performed part time service as a Calculator Operator in Carrier's Central Timekeeping Bureau at San Francisco. Employes working in this department were carrier on Seniority Roster No. 6 of the Accounting Department. It is not disputed that under agreements then existing, Claimant was not given a seniority date on Roster No. 6 for the reason that she never acquired a permanent position during that period, a condition precedent to the obtaining of a seniority date on that roster. On September 1, 1943, the work of the Central Timekeeping Bureau was transferred to district time keeping offices located at the headquarters of the various division superintendents. On September 16 1943, Claimant began service as a part time Calculator Operator at the Coast Division Office in San Francisco. On November 6, 1943 she was assigned a permanent position of Comptometer Operator and accorded a seniority date of September 16, 1943, on Coast Division Seniority Roster No. 1, it being the date she commenced part time work in the Coast Division Office.

It is the contention of the Organization that Claimant is entitled to credit for the part time worked in the Central Timekeeping Bureau, whose employes were carried on Roster No. 6, in determining the correct seniority date to be assigned her on Coast Division Seniority Roster No. 1. The Carrier contends that under existing agreements, Claimant's Seniority date is the date she commenced her part time work in the Coast Division Office.

An Agreement entered into on September 8, 1943, provided in part as follows:

"It is hereby agreed * * * that in perpetuation of the principles as to method of allowing seniority dates to certain part-time workers, that the following will govern with respect to the establishing of

-seniority dates by part-time calculating machine operators, part-time typists, and part-time check writers * * * on the seniority roster under which the work is performed:

"Such a worker will be entitled to a seniority date only when she (or he) has been assigned to a clerical or machine operator position advertised under Rule 33 of the working agreement, either on a temporary or permanent basis."

It seems clear to us that under the foregoing rule, a part-time calculating machine operator can take credit for time worked in fixing a seniority date only on the seniority roster under which the work is performed. While Claimant worked approximately nine years as a part-time calculating ma-

chine operator on work covered by Seniority Roster No. 6, when she discontinued performing work covered by that roster without ever attaining a regular position on a permanent basis, she never became entitled to a seniority date on that roster and the contingent time credits toward seniority if she ever became entitled to a seniority date on Roster No. 6, lost even their contingent value. When Claimant commenced part-time work covered by Coast Division Roster No. 1 on September 16, 1943, and subsequently on November 6, 1943, was assigned a regular position on a permanent basis, the contingency occurred which permitted the use of her part-time performed undet Seniority Roster No. 1 toward the establishment of her seniority date in that seniority district.

It is not the province of this Board to be governed by apparent equities of the existing situation or to correct seeming inequities where the language of the agreement is plain and unambiguous. Under such circumstances we will enforce the agreement as made by the parties. Claimant's seniority date was correctly fixed as of September 16, 1943, and no basis for an affirmative award exists.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing upon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing thereon;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD