STATEMENT OF CLAIM: (a) Claim that the Carrier violated the rules of the Signalmen's Agreement when, on June 4, 1945, it permitted C. A. Leetz, who holds seniority under the Signalmen's Agreement but who was regularly assigned to a position wholly excepted from the Signalmen's Agreement (Assistant Supervisor Telegraph and Signals, Baltimore) to voluntarily vacate his excepted position and displace an employe occupying a position in the foremen's group.
(b) Claim that C. A. Leetz should have been required to exercise his seniority in accordance with Section 13 of Article 4 of the Agreement.
(c) Claim that any employe who is displaced by C. A. Leetz in the foremen's group shall be restored to his position in this group and shall be compensated for the difference in the rate paid him and what he would have earned had he remained in the foreman's group.
(d) Claim that all other employes who were subsequently displaced as a result of this improper displacement by Leetz be restored to their former positions and be compensated for all differences in wage rates and be reimbursed for all expense involved.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACT'S: On April 1, 1942, C. A. Leetz was promoted from a position on the Chicago Terminal Division classified under the provisions of the T. & S. agreement to an Assistant Signal Supervisor on the Pittsburgh Division, and on April 16, 1943, was transferred to the Maryland Division in the same capacity.
On June 4, 1946, Leetz voluntarily relinquished his position as Assistant Signal Supervisor on the Maryland Division and was permitted by the Carrier to exercise his seniority on the Chicago Terminal Division (Leetz's home seniority district) by displacing a junior T. & S. Foreman. Other employes on the Chicago Terminal Division were disturbed as a result of Leetz being permitted by the Carrier to improperly exercise his seniority.
There was no force reduction, neither was there any permanent position or permanent vacancy existing at the time Leetz was permitted to improperly exercise his seniority on the Chicago Terminal Division.
Positions of Assistant Signal Supervisor are recognized as being excepted from the provisions of the T. &S. Agreement and Leetz had occupied a position in such excepted group since April 1, 1942.
There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute bearing effective (late of June 1, 1943. We upderstand a copy of this agreement is on file with the Board, and we request that it be considered a part of the record in this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: We are unable to find any provision of the agreement that permits a promoted employe to elect, of his own volition, to return to a position covered by the agreement.
Section 13 that saves seniority for an employe while occupying a position not covered by the agreement expressly provides the manner in which seniority so saved may be exercised. Those provisions are found in Article 4, Section 8, and Article 4, Section 20. The one covering the right to claim a position by reason of reduction of force or the abolition of a position, the other the right to claim a position by bid after bulletining. And these provisions vitalize the seniority preserved rather than form a method of procedure as contended for by carrier.
Nor may added priveleges be assumed, as argued by carrier, by reason of the thirty-day probationary period authorized by Section 13 (c). Such provision is but a reaffirmation of a temporary vacancy in the former position for the like period provided for in other temporary vacancies.
FINDINGS: The Third Division pf the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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