man. The Board in Award 4507, Third Division, interpreted a rule practically identical to Article 3, Section 35, and stated:
When Carrier returned Mr. J. H. Lougeay to his position of Assistant Signalman and Mr. A. M. Nelson to his position of Signal Helper, it did so with the interest in seeing that seniority which an employe has acquired is protected.
Under the particular facts involved in this dispute, Carrier does not find where the contractual rights of Claimant A. M. Nelson have been invaded. The agreement in effect does not provide an answer to the situation here presented, and Carrier's action was merely the result of an attempt to rectify an error it had made.
There has been no violation as alleged by the Employes in Part (b) of their claim, and their request should be denied.
All data in this submission have been presented to the Employes and made a part of the question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: On October 26, 1956 Carrier by bulletin advertised a vacancy for a Signalman position at East St. Louis, Illinois, whose seniority on the territory involved was in the seniority class embracing Classes 2, 3 and 4 Signal employes. No bids were received from employes holding seniority in that seniority class, but J. H. Lougeay, an Assistant Signalman in Class 5 did bid on the position and it was awarded to him on November 7, 1956. On November 9, 1956 Carrier advertised the vacancy thus created in the Assistant Signalman position and Claimant herein, previously a Signal Helper, bid for and was awarded this vacancy on December 3, 1956. He remained in this position until January 25, 1957, when he was demoted back to Signal Helper, at the same time Carrier demoted Lougeay back to Assistant Signalman in the belief it had erred in first awarding to the latter the Signalman position.
Claim was filed before the Board, Third Division (Supplemental), Docket Number SG-10233, in which Employes among other things requested the return of Lougeay to the Signalman position, with all seniority and rights restored. Subsequently the parties mutually agreed to withdraw that dispute, and by Award Number 10354 the claim was dismissed.
Claim also was filed before the Board, Third Division (Supplemental), Docket Number 10234, in which Employes requested compensation of Lougeay for the difference in Assistant Signalman's pro rata rate of pay and that of 10897-15 ggs
a Signalman until such time as he should be properly restored to the latter position. Subsequently, in view of the disposition of Docket Number SG-10233, the Board referred this claim back to the property by Award Number 10855, "for further conferences so that this claim may be presented and adjudicated in toto and not in part".
Claim in behalf of Claimant Nelson herein properly should be disposed of finally in like manner as that in behalf of Lougeay, since Nelson was awarded Lougeay's former position initially and then demoted back at the same time. This claim therefore also should be referred back to the property to abide the result as to Lougeay and to be disposed of concomitantly with that which finally ensues as to the Lougeay claim, either there or before this Board, as the case may be.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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
That the claim should be remanded to the property for disposition indicated in the opinion.